Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Privacy - a short story

             Just looking at her from across a room can put a smile on my face. Her smell makes me feel at home and her skin is smoother than silk. I feel electricity when we touch. She is the girl of my dreams and nothing can compare in my eyes. She was everything to me and now she’s gone. They took her.
I live in a world where privacy is outlawed and very few have complete control and make the decisions for everyone. Things were not always this way. People today seem to have forgotten the way things were before “The Lockdown.” Privacy was once respected as a right to everyone in this country and the people had the power to elect representatives to govern the country. Thinking about how much has changed so quickly almost makes me want to laugh, but mostly just makes me want to cry. It amazes me how quickly people forget about the past, too busy with their meaningless jobs assigned to them by the council, but I can never forget.
I have thought a lot about how society could have turned into what it is today and I find myself always coming back to one word; fear. About ten years ago, before everything changed, there was a series of terrorist attacks on our country. It started with bus bombings in major cities and escalated into a major attack on the white house using a hijacked commercial passenger plane. Like a growing fire, fear consumed the country. For the first time in a very long time, the warfront was in our backyards instead of across the globe. The president at the time declared a “War on Terror” and vowed to put an end to the violence and to punish the people responsible. Our armies invaded a few countries in the Middle East, toppling their armies, with the validation that they were responsible and their leaders were producing and harboring weapons of mass destruction. On top of the aggressive foreign policy, new laws were passed making it easier for government agencies to retrieve information from unknowing citizens and also gave more unchecked power to the president and other top government officials. People readily accepted these laws because they wanted to feel protected from the unknown threat.
The attacks on our cities seemed to slow for a while after the new laws and people began to feel more comfortable again. The public praised the president for putting these laws into place and the governing officials were given more power than ever before, and they liked it. Suddenly massive attacks around the country erupted and people were driven off the edge. In the name of patriotism and protecting our country, our leaders decreed complete control and put in place a mass increase in intelligence retrieval, abolishing privacy. The attacks stopped but the power was never returned.
We are always being watched. In public places there are cameras around every corner and drones constantly hovering overhead collecting data. Our homes do not offer any more privacy. All of our electronics are always on, always watching, always listening, and always collecting. Everything we do on these devices goes straight to massive database collections, waiting to be reviewed for potential threats. This was what we now refer to as “The Lockdown.”
I met Mirna years before the events leading up to The Lockdown and since then she has been the most important thing in my life. She was arrested yesterday because the government found evidence that she might be a potential threat to the state. Under The Lockdown decree, any citizen suspected of being a potential terrorist, or having communications with any suspected terrorists, will be removed from society. In reality this means that the government can imprison citizens without just cause. It seems as if almost a third of the people I know have been taken and never seen again. Most people do not question anything because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is required to keep us safe. The word “patriotism” is thrown around a lot in the public and media. The minority that hasn't been convinced that The Lockdown is the only thing keeping us from more terrorist attacks is afraid to question authority because they are afraid to be taken.
Last night was our three year anniversary and I came home from work early so I would have time to make a surprise dinner. In the middle of our candlelit dinner our door exploded open and the room filled with eye-burning white light and an ear-bursting boom. I was left dazed, stumbling on the floor trying to get up. When my eyesight focused I saw three men in heavy black swat armor restraining Mirna. Instinctively I ran at the men dragging Mirna out of our apartment. Before I could get to them I was tackled to the floor by two other officers that came from behind me. Mirna was thrashing at the men but it was no use. Pinned to the floor I watched as they took her. She was crying and looking right as me. My ears were still ringing so I couldn’t hear anything but as she was passing through our doorway her lips formed the words “I love you.”

When she was gone the two burley swat members holding me down stood up and casually walked out of the room where my door would have been less than two minutes earlier. I did not get up. I stayed on the floor staring at the doorway unable to process the events that just occurred. I started to scream as loud as I could. I felt as if someone ripped a piece of me away. I felt extreme sadness and rage simultaneously. I felt alone.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

A Fight for The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth

Many people, when looking for news, will not look at many different sources to achieve an unbiased view of reality. The way news is today, if I want to find information on current events, I need to look at multiple sources and piece the information together, like pieces of a puzzle, to get the full picture. The easiest way to get the current news is to turn on the television and tune to a major news network. Ironically, most of the time the mainstream news networks like MSNBC, CNN and Fox News are the most biased.
            As research for an assignment in my 2012 election class, I found myself dumbfounded as I watched MSNBC and Fox News. Flipping between the two news networks felt like stepping back and forth in between alternate universes. Reporting on the election and giving post-election analysis should be straight-forward because there is only one set of numbers to look at yet Fox News and MSNBC reported very different stories. After the election, Fox News wasted no time declaring that President Obama has no mandate and criticized his “negative campaign.” On the other hand Rachel Maddow, anchor of MSNBC’s nightly news program “The Rachel Maddow Show”, had a hard time hiding the smile sprawled across her face while she discussed the results of the election.
           In contrast to Maddow's excited speech about the results of the election and the harsh criticism of the Republican Party, Fox News criticized President Obama's “negative” campaign and his lack of mandate. Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and a political commentator for Fox News, proposed that even though Obama won the election, he did not come close to achieving a mandate. Hendrick Hertzberg, best known as the principal political commentator for the New Yorker and author of The New York article “Mandate with Destiny”, pointed out that Obama’s “popular-vote margin exceeds four million, a million more than George W. Bush amassed when he ran for reelection,” and also that “Obama’s electoral-college majority is also larger: 332 to Mitt Romney’s 206, as against Bush’s 286 to John Kerry’s 251” (Hertzberg, Mandate with Destiny). Krauthammer and Fox News reporters criticized President Obama’s lack of mandate even though the President has a larger mandate than President Bush did when he ran for reelection. This is an example of the conservative bias in the news and it is reporting like this that is hurting our country by misrepresenting situations and information.
           Being such an influential source for information, mass media has the power to portray a specific opinion and impose that opinion onto their audience. Media bias is the bias of news producers and journalists within the mass media in the selection of events and stories that are reported and how they are covered. The glaring difference in journalism between MSNBC and Fox News is a result of opposing media biases. Bias is unavoidable for many reasons including pressure from corporate owners, pressure from advertisers, or pressure from the audience. The conservative bias in the news today is far worse than the liberal bias and is degrading the quality of accessible information to the public.
           There are many books that argue the media has a liberal bias, but a possible leader of the pack is Ann Coulter. Coulter is the author of the New York Times best-seller Slander. Ann Coulter was a lawyer before she became a very successful author. In the first page of Slander, Coulter writes, “political debate in this country has become insufferable,” and “liberals have become more bitter and angry” (Coulter, 2). Coulter argues political debate has shrunk to mindless babble due to “bitter and angry liberals.” Coulter continues with “progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making an argument and the other side is throwing eggs” (Coulter, 2). Coulter accuses liberals of destroying the political arena, but I find myself asking, “What has Coulter done to civilize the debate?” If Coulter wants to make the political arena a more civilized and factual based place, she needs to start with herself.
            Coulter's final example in Slander, to prove that liberals have a death grip on the media, was on the topic of the New York Times. Coulter was extremely upset that the day after Dale Earnhardt, seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion, tragically died in a race, she did not see a story on the front page of the New York Times. Coulter goes on to explain that the lack of respect for Earnhardt and the sport of stock-car racing, proves that liberals have their hands around the media's neck and that they are “savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for a sport” (Coulter, 205). Although her choice of words may infuriate many people, Coulter makes a good point: Why would the New York Times ignore the tragic demise of Dale Earnhardt, a famous racer in the nationally popular sport of stock-car racing? Maybe it is because the paper is being run by the “lefty elite” like Coulter suggests. If so, this is a very powerful argument for the legendary liberal bias in the media.
           Turns out, unfortunately for Coulter, that she either missed something or purposely did not do the proper research for her book. Dale Earnhardt died on February 18th, 2001. On the 19th the New York Times ran a front-page story of the Earnhardt's death written by sportswriter Robert Lipstyte. The headline of this front-page story was “Stock Car Star Killed on Last Lap of Daytona 500.” Coulter missed this front-page story that ran the day after the event. Did she accidently skip over the paper that day, or does this strange case of disregard for the facts embody the conservative bias in our country?
           Rupert Murdoch is the majority owner of  News Corporation, which, in turn, owns the Fox Broadcasting Network, HyperCollins publishing, which is one of the world’s leading English-language publishers, 20th Century Fox, and over twenty-five magazines including the Weekly Standard. News Corporation also owns over one hundred and thirty English language newspapers including the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. In an issue of Forbes magazine, Murdoch was ranked the fourth most powerful man in the world because he is so wealthy and has so much influence through the companies that he owns. (Franken, 59).  Murdoch uses Fox News Channel as a megaphone for his conservative political ideologies. With that much money and power, and an empire comparable to Darth Vader’s, how can an unbiased public network, like NPR, compete for influence? It can’t. 
It should be easier to get unbiased news than news that has a corporate owner pulling the strings. The problem is money; to achieve the goal of mainstream neutral reporting, government funding must be available to match the funds of biased news networks, like Fox News. “Federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public. Its continuation is critical for both station and program producers, including NPR” (npr). In 2010, NPR revenues totaled 180 million dollars, and only 4.3 percent of the total funds this year came from the federal, state, and local government. To fix this problem the government needs to provide funding to NPR so that their funds are equal to that of major network giants like Fox News. NPR cannot compete for influence without equal funding to do so.
           A never ending raging war of words is waging between two opposing political ideologies. This is not a war fought with bullets and sweat, but is a clash of two titans fighting for the slightest upper-hand. The battlegrounds are our television, radio, and newspapers. Mass media is where the battle is fought day after day and the battle-scars are evident. The causalities are not men and women, but the credibility of the most influential source of political information, the news.

Works Cited
Coulter, Ann H. Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right. New York: Crown, 2002. Print.
Fox News Channel, Political news/opinion program, (2012; New York City: Fox News Channel,    
2012.), Television
Franken, Al. Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
London: Allen Lane, 2003. Print.
Hertzberg, Hendrick. "Mandate with Destiny." The New Yorker 3 Dec. 2012: n. pag. The New
            Yorker. 3 Dec. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"Public Radio Finances." Npr. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
Rachel Maddow, The Rachel Maddow Show, Political news/opinion program, Rachel Maddow,

(2012; New York City: MSNBC, 2012.), Television