I'm Rubber Your'e Glue...Presidential Debate

Obama and McCain two candidates competing for our nation's commander in chief position.

The two senators went on a head to head combat mission to make sure they were clean of all accusations. However McCain did all the finger pointing while Obama had to accompany every answer with a defense rebuttal...Almost everything that was asked to McCain, he felt a need to point out Obama's flaws...he stayed away from the issues...instead answering with lavish unrealistic promises...(he is the Bush's all over again.)..it is frieghtning to even imagine having another four years of the Bush administration through McCain...Obama tried to remain on topic and wanted to differ himself from the finger pointing McCain was doing...

What I found most disturbing was how McCain kept avoiding the DE-regulation of corporations, Obama argued corporations are the biggest threat to the fair wealth distribution in the United States. McCain just reiterated back to making promises for a bright future.

What I found most alarming about McCain was how he kept referring to ex-President Reagan as his hero. Anyone with a fair grip of American history knows that the late ex-president contributions to our democracy was the begining of the ending of our democracy, sorry McCain if that's not a red flag for a disastrous future I don't know what is.

Blog #4 Bad Journalism #2

Bad journalism comes in many facets, forms and medians, unfortunately for some it is only the educated eyes and ears that can uncover the real truth behind bad journalism...

Journalism; the eyes and ears of a democratic nation...but what happens when the eyes reflect deceitful images and the ears hears nothing but lies. That is exactly the phenomenon that is journalism and the media in the United States today. Once upon a time one could turn to a newspaper and even a television set and rest assure that they were leaving with truthful un-biased information to ponder about. The journalism median was one of prestige and honor, a journalist was someone whom you could trust because you knew your own best interest was at the heart of every news story. Well, today an entire decade into the greatest innovations and we now live in an arbitrary reality. Journalism and media have become just as corrupted as the corporations they strive to please...

The American government whom should be monitored by the free press now does the monitoring of it. They filter everything the American people see, read and hear through manipulation, privatized and conglomerate agendas. There are of course exceptions of some publishers that are true to the journalistic integrity but I will discuss them later, now I will focus on the mis-information merry go-round, ring circus which we continue to be exposed to...Our democratic, constitutional rights for a free, ethical press is vanishing right before our eyes. Our first amendment of a free press is more scarce than ever thanks to bad journalists whom promote the agendas for the powers that be and continue to disease our airways, newspapers with lies and coercion... I prefer images of dreadful truths than images of lovely lies....

Blog#3 Bad Journalism #1

I have read several articles pertaining to a particular case I posted on my first Blog about the kidnapped victim Shawn Hornbeck. This case highlights how the media took a child victim and made a mockery out of his life story.

Shawn Horbeck was found at the age of fifteen by the FBI four years after having been abducted by a child predator. Shawn was held captive by Micheal Delvin and and during his captivity he presumed a normal life for four years. After being rescued the question that the media chose to place all their energy and focus on was "why didn't Shawn escape?" This question gave the hounding media fuel to orchestrate terrible unjust and extreme unethical journalism at the price of an innocent child whom at the hands of the media was made a victim over and over again.

The phenomenon of bad journalism is really highlighted in this case, they lacked essential elements in practicing ethical journalism one of which is to approach such a story with great sensitivity and caution. O'Reilly is a prime example of terrible classless media that should not be referred to or even entertained. However the New York Post did not make it any better. They brought even more attention and speculation around the question of Shawn's "voluntary captivity", as if the victim has not gone through a traumatizing four year ordeal, here comes the NY Post advertising something that happened to be a coincidence and completely irrelevant to the case... they tried to psychologically attach Shawn's circumstances to Shawn's deceased father's child molesting past.

The Post did nothing to sympathize with the victim and intentionally left an air of doubt about Shawn's abduction. They even made it relevant to mention the kidnapper's passion for video games and how the child enjoyed playing for hours. According to the blog O'Reilly and The Post share the same parent company NewsCorp. It is not a coincidence that they would publish articles to back up O'Reilly's ignorant assumptions and vice versa.

What makes this case incredible bad journalism by NewsCorp reporters, is their abundant disregard for the journalistic code of ethics. A child was taken from everything he loved and forced to live a life of abuse and sexual torture all of which is bound to come with psychological consequences. Showing very little compassion, zero sensibility to a sensitive vulnerable child, they demonstrated how invaluble the code of ethics as well as the elements of journalism are for today's newspapers and televised media. Through O'Reilly's mindless jargon, the newspaper's uneducated coverage, the child was made to be a victim all over again via bad unethical journalism.

NewsCorps' people (I will not refer to then as journalist's) did not focus on the facts of the case, or the truth. The New York Post and O'Reilly are the epidemy of bias, un-truthful and frighteningly over-exposed journalism.

Iran President @ Columbia: who did it best?

Washington Post approach of president Mahmoud's visit to Columbia was very objective . Their entire article simply quoted the entire event word by word, from the infamous introduction given by the university's president Lee Bollinger to president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's controversial speech.

The Washington post did not have any opinion's or third party quotes it simply stated the facts as it took place. This in my opinion is good journalism, the kind that one can refer to when establishing an individual and independent outtake on such an event.

Newsweek's approach more subjective for their title begins with "The Iranian president drew cheers and boos from his Ivy League audience. But the university's Lee Bollinger may have been the real scene-stealer during the controversial visit." They put much emphasis on the president's introductory speech and focused on the reasoning behind the president's out lash to Ahmadenijad.

NewsWeek had a point of view and what seemed to be a bias one. They geared towards keeping the reader entertained by the controversial aspect of the event. They highlighted the comments made by Ahmadenijad, like the holocaust being a theory and the no homosexuals in his country comment. However they did say that the audience reacted with mixed responses booing and cheering at times which indicated some impartial pontential.

Overall Newsweek did do a good job at covering the events , quoting comments made from spectators at the event. However the Washington Post whom took a complete impartial approach, chose to stick to the actual speech, which in my opinion is good unequivocated journalism.

Shawn Hornbeck

CBS aired a 48 hour interview with the child victim Shawn Hornbeck who was kidnapped one afternoon while riding his bike down a dirt road a few miles from his home. The kidnapper Michael Delvin kept Shawn for 4 years, except during the four years Shawn was not physically held by chains or confined in the kidnapper's apartment. The victim was able to live a so-called normal life and even made friends.


The question is why didn't Shawn presented with so many opportunities free himself from his captivity? I recently saw the "O'Reilly factor" on the Shawn Hornbeck case. O'Reilly sinisterly declared on air that the victim must have enjoyed his captivity! Then he ranted on about how he didn’t buy into the child possibly suffering from Stockholm's syndrome.

In Shawn's case Stockholm's syndrome is very possible in fact very logical. Stockholm's syndrome is when a victim living in isolation however tormented and abused will develop sympathy for their captor, when given tokens of love and showed some kindness. This mentality is sort of warped and makes sense in my opinion in Shawn's case. He begged for his life the first night he was abducted and pleaded with the kidnapper, not to kill him…The child did not see another way out…he felt kidnapper Delvin had the power over him... and this sort of loyalty that Shawn developed to stay around "willingly" was the child's only way of survival.

Shawn Hornbeck was merely only 11 years old at the time he was taken away and I can't imagine the horrendous terror he underwent at the hands of such an abuser...Shawn did what he had to do to survive...he submitted to the kidnappers will and survived...he was kidnapped at a very tender impressionable age...only he understands his own pain...as much as the media and O'Reilly tries to take a twisted shallow approach in reasoning with the facts of the Hornbeck case, the truth remains Shawn Hornbeck is a survivor and unfortunately the media especially O'Reilly (why is this guy on the air?) has done a terrible injustice in exploiting this case.