In Review of "The News Keeps Getting Worse For Our News Organizations"

The blog post, The News Keeps Getting Worse For Our News Organizations by Jim Miller is about a study done by Pew Research on how more people than ever now believe that the news organizations of today are biased in some way. Miller is a professor of political science and liberal studies at Brandeis University. His main message is that a larger percentage of the American population is saying that they believe news is biased. He seems to be addressing those who are interested in how the public is dealing with the bias in the media. According to Miller the belief that news is biased spreads across party lines to both democrats and republicans. Miller uses parts of the study to show how more men than women and more people over 50 than under believe that news is biased. He even goes as far to say, "In other words, the more you know about the news, the more likely you are to see the news as very biased". Miller also talks about a simple political test that was given to a number of registered voters. This test showed that the average voter was very uneducated or misinformed as the test produced poor results. Miller appears to try to pass the message that more people are now seeing the media for what it really is and that media is failing at providing the correct factual news.

Miller shows that he agrees with the increase in the number of those who believe news is biased. Miller states how the poor test results, "should worry our news organizations"; this implies that some might not even care. Miller also appears to imply in his article that women do not know as much about politics as men and those under 50 do not know as much as those over. Adding the quote in the previous paragraph along with the fact that 33 percent of women and 41 percent of men, and 44 percent of those over 50 and 31 percent of those under 50 thought that news was biased, shows that Miller is definitely implying something of that nature. Miller also believes that the bias in news media is a bipartisan problem.

It is very obvious that Miller believes news is biased and according to recent studies so are a growing portion of Americans. If more and more people begin to believe news is biased how long will it be before news changes to be more accountable? Will there even be a change? If we cannot trust the news to provide us with accurate information then who can we trust? The news needs to be made more accurate and accountable, unfortunately though, until news sees a sharp decline in ratings I doubt a change will occur. The implications of this bias will only result in the American public being misled and misinformed to believe whatever that particular news organization whats them to believe. There is no way around it, the news media is biased and the public is wising up to it.

In Response to "To the Moon, Newt!"

A recent blog post on Slate Magazine’s blog “future tense” recently titled “To the Moon, Newt!” addressed a recent statement by Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich. In a recent speech in Florida, Gingrich proposed an ambitious plan to create a permanent colony on the moon in the next decade with plans to go to Mars afterwards. Gingrich then went on to propose that this colony could potentially become the “51^st state” of the United States.

The future tense article discusses the recent speech by Gingrich and numerous reasons why it is implausible. The post appears to ridicule Gingrich’s statements never agreeing or acknowledging any of his statements as valid. Being a post on Slate Magazine’s website, the content is clearly geared towards a liberal audience. The magazine has a history of supporting Democratic candidates such as Barack Obama. In addition, the magazine has entirely free content and is supported by ads as a source of revenue. As a result, attracting readership is key. Due to this, it is easy to see why Slate chose to present this topic with an entertaining diction, painting Gingrich as entirely a fool. It is evident that there is some level of exaggeration or embellishment on the author’s part. By doing so, the author appeases and amuses his audience, increasing readership and profits.

Despite the amusingly contrarian nature of the post, the author brings up a number of valid points about Gingrich’s statement. For example, the speech took place in Florida, which is the state most invested in space travel. It is apparent that Gingrich partially gave out this speech to attract voters in this key state using one of the most romanticized endeavors of this country, space travel. What makes this blatant appease more apparent and unrealistic is the projected cost of the project. Putting a man on the moon 40 years ago cost $100 billion after adjusted for inflation. The creation of a permanent moon colony would undoubtedly cost more, a cost that may be hard to swallow in today’s economy.

This blog post brings up an interesting example of how science and technology is often politicized. Science is a subject that is completely objective, based on fact and reason. However, it is often used in emotionally based topics such as politics. When doing so, science is often presented as a mysterious but necessary ideal. As a result, the majority of citizens accepts statements about science as “fact” and fail to question them. As a result, politician’s statements using science are viewed as supported by evidence and unquestionable. We often see politicians preaching about things like “the need for scientific innovation” or “staying competitive in science”. By misrepresenting science, politicians attempt to connect their non-science agendas to fact and rationalize them. In the case of Gingrich, he presents an entirely unrealistic scientific endeavor that most people would not realize as impossible in order to get a rise in the polls. While science is a necessary and major part of our nation, should politicians be the one’s talking about science? Should there be some sort of watchdog that fact checks politician’s discussion of science much like the St. Petersburg Times PoltiFact fact checker?

Science Fiction Needs a Handicap

This blog is about how Anna Palindrome, author of the blog, The Transcontinental Disability Choir: A Wizard Did It, wife of a man in a wheel chair, complains about how sci-fi has characters with disabilities but they don't seem to be affected or complain about the troubles that go with a disability. She brings up characters ranging from Star Trek, to X-men, Angel, and Daredevil that all have disabilities yet, as she states several times, are not affected by these disabilities. Anna argues that Professor X, a character from X-men, is in a flying wheel chair and he is perfectly able to move up stairs and states that her husband is clearly not able to do that in the real world. She also rants on about how Geordi La Forge, character from Star Trek, has the ability to see thanks to his visor, yet Geordi is completely blind without this devise. She makes the claim that this devise also gives him a super power since it can let him see things that the directors what him to see. The general message that she tries to get across is that sci-fi movies, shows, comic books, etc. have this notion that people with disabilities should have a piece of technology that makes them normal again or gives them some kind of super power which as a result makes the show, or other media source, unrealistic.
     Anna makes these, almost as if blood lust, statements that are clearly one sided and supported with nothing but pure P.M.S. emotion. I do understand that she has a husband that is in a wheelchair but she should have made her argument much more supported with either more examples or facts. Being the comic book fan that I am, I remember plenty of times that Professor X was knocked out of his wheel chair and he was pretty much useless, physically. Like many people that are paralyzed from the waist down, Professor X has to either crawl around or try to find a way back into his chair. Along with other assumptions, she complains about how Geordi La Forge, of Star Trek, has a visor over his eyes to help him see and a few other things. But again her remark can be argued with various episodes in Star Trek where Geordi has his visor knocked off or broken and he is rendered blind and has to rely on hearing and touch as his main senses to navigate his surroundings. Although she does make some alright points, she still needs to be able to back up her argument with more than just emotion.   
     The way that this blog's site is set up seems to be designed in a way to attract the attention of other "feminine arguers." On the side of the blog, there are adds that are about eating healthy, colleges, jewelry, and other pro female or "girl power" advertisements that try to draw the attention of more females. Other than the "you go girl" advertisements and the plain white and striped background, there is nothing else in this blog or the site that seems to be, at any point in time, eye catching. I suppose the dullness of the blog helps fuel the argument or helps people that feel as if their voice must be heard get their "statement" across.
     Other than the fact that this blog was a full out emotional rampage, it does bring up some questions that could be addressed.

• Should science fiction have characters that are disabled but have powers?
• Why should science fiction be more realistic?
• Could technological advancements allow these barriers to be overcome for the physically disabled?