FOOOOOOOOOOD in the 08 rpes campaign

so one of my fave topics- food came up in the paper
the nyt most have ran out of things to write about so they wrote about the candidate's eating habbits- and anaylized how food can be seen as great judgment of character- if a candidate eats too much and becomes fat their undisciplines- if they refuse food they reject the person serving the food.

they cant eat because their always answering questions.

this ofoucrse simply shows the beuty pagent side of politics- a pagent where the judges are always ALWAYS watching everything EVERYTHING

it makes sense if one of the candidates started eating one of the ethnic food i eat i would emediataly have a soft spot for him or her.

food is so much part of our culture it spills into everything even presidential elections.

but is it fair to assume that a candidate with food allergies is disadvantaged or unqualified?

food alregies have nothing to do with how well a person can run a country but appereantly they have a lot to do with a persons ability to win that position.

why is it that many of the qualities required to win elections have nothing to do with the actual qualities needed for a presidency?

ethic and new media reading- the joy

ok let me say this once and probably many more times- I HATE LEARNING ABOUT EHTICS-

yes i am now suffering through an entire media ethics course and yes i do understand the value of learning ethics and thinking out ethical problems and theories and how they realte to real live decisions before actually getting to the job- but i still hate it-

also becuase the reading was so dispuresed and i dont want to sound like i have drank 50 cups of cofee i will commment on specifics.

one of the articles we had to read said journalism can do a lot but it cant do everything. how true.

however i am concerned with its example. It speaks of the well known sociological experiment that proves that we are more compasionate to a single soul suffering then two or more souls suffering. it praised the nyt for bringing the actual people away from the statistics in darfur to create more compassion among its readers.

now that is defenatly a way of telling a story.it shows whats going on an important part of whats going on but wheres the line between hard core reporting and yellow/propaganda reporting?

Is it a reporters job to evoke emotion in a reader or is it their job to tell the facts. although emotion is many times part of the story i must ask where do we stop.

should a reporter chose what emotions she will try to evoke from a reader or let the story tell itself? without having a agenda to evoke emotion

We must ask this question especially now when it becomes increasingly eawsier to have personal sotries fill the pages of newspaper websites. it wouldnt really cost the paper much to put them there but sould they- or should that be left to bloggers?

Radio and tv

Ha- ok although i read this freshman year i am happy that i go to refresh my mind. I work for the radio now and I kinda forgot the basic stuff. I mean I dont think my news updates were that horrible but i think i can better understand them now- I hope class will be equally informative.

Its so weird getting advice in a text book that i can immediately use. Im so used to reading things that i do not know how i can use or that i can maybe think of needing in the distant future. but the tips in this book I can use on wednesday when I go on-air. THAT IS BEYOND COOL!!

it reminds me of a commercial in the subway back home. Its an advertisement of a college and it has a grad student and over his face is his schedule. 8am wake up 9 am work 3pm go to class 6 pm go to night job and use the skills you learned.

This reading has also made me realize how little I know about news broadcast I hope I will have an opportunity to learn more.

Clinton honey

So Clinton was caught cheating then denied it and said it wont happen again. In this NYT article it claims that Clintons aids planted a question in a Q and A session.

Clonton claims to not have known.

The advisors said that this was an unofficial tactic they use. but not it will be officially against the rules.

If this is a common tactic then how does clinton "not know about it" I she is lying she is not fit for president is she is so ignorant she does not know what is going on right under her nose she is not fit for president.

If she really did not know then she would take real action to prevent it from happening again but no one got fired or punished in any way. Instead staff members have been told to avoid doing it again. - they have not been told to stop doing it- no they should avoid doing it but you know if they cant help themselves then thats alright.

Honestly if this is the kind of thing that Clinton means when she says change then her presidency would go unnoticed because nothing would change.

She'll probably tell the US military to " avoid" killing Iraquis and invading countries

Deomocrats full of air?

So according to this NYT article the 2008 elections are too extraordinary for the democrats to be sure of the 2008 win. They base this mostly on clintons bad press week. And how the war (one of the democrats best bets in this election) may be coming off of the front pages.

however i the last two elections (at least this is how back my presidential election memory streches) the people chose the candidate who was less worse not the better candidate- i dont think this election will be much better- we may like neither party but one must run the country so lets choose less evil of the two.

and i think the republicans have more negatives against them thendemocrats do.

so these elections may have very unique dinamics but the rules are the same- get the most votes not the most people- a person without a vote is not important- if of the country does not want you to be president but you got the most votes then thats all that matters