Media Deprivation

  It was 10:07 am on Thanksgiving day, according to my father, when I finally dragged myself out of bed. I thought to myself, "nine hours down, 15 to go." This would be, as Washington Post writer and American University professor Dana Walker would describe as “The Longest Day." Earlier that morning, at around 1 a.m., I turned off my XBOX 360, and somberly headed off to bed. I tried killing time with the usual getting-ready-for-bed activities, brushing teeth, changing into my sleeping clothes, etc. But it still felt weird. Something wasn't right. Something was missing. The thing that surprised me the most was that when I usually did these things, mostly during break from the 1 a.m. SportsCenter telecast on ESPN or a "South Park" re-run, it seemed to take forever, and I would miss what part of what was on or several instant messages from my friends, but with none of these media outlets available,  it felt like it took no time at all.    Back to later in the morning. I didn't want to cheat, so I turned my digital clock off. I went to take a shower when getting out of bed because we needed to leave by 10:25 to get to our Thanksgiving breakfast with my family on time. My family is big so everyone eats dinner with different people, so my im mediate family has a bagel breakfast on Thanksgiving. So, being the half-asleep teenager that I am, I thought that dragging out the time it took to shower was a good idea. I let the water get as hot as possible, shaved, put on a special new deodorant, cleaned my ears, brushed my teeth, all trying to take up some time. I thought I would be out and dressed by exactly 10:25, unfortunately my 12-year old sister starts banging on the bathroom door while I was still in the shower, saying it was 10:25. Normally, I would have set an alarm on my cell phone but I couldn't. I rushed to get dressed, didn't even comb my hair, and ran upstairs to hear a cry of pain. My dad, also apparently half-asleep, had somehow managed to slam a door on his toe. Well, we were running late, and he was having trouble walking, but I didn't want to get tempted by media, so I convinced him to walk to my grandparents' house a few minutes away instead of driving. Selfish, maybe, telling your dad to man-up, awesome. We get there, eat and hang with the family, I spent time plying with my four year-old cousin and her one ear-old sister. Got back at 1 p,m,, and I was halfway there.        I saw my phone vibrating when I got back into my room, but I couldn't pick it up, and it was so painful. I was bored so I thought I'd check Facebook, but I couldn't, watch football, no. I was so bored, I screamed. I ran up to my parents begging them to let m e paint the deck or something, and they said I could read a book. A book is an old-fashioned storytelling device with written words spread across several pages. Turned out we had several books on a book shelf right next to my room, I always thought it was just decoration. I read some of the book Ball Four before I got really tired, and figured I would take a long nap until dinner started at 5. Got in bed at 3, I was going to hide my remote control so I didn't wake up and out of instinct turn on a football game or ESPN, but it wasn't on my night stand or in its drawer so I gave up, and just fell asleep.      I woke up at 4:45 really, really, really groggy, and turned over. I saw that ESPN was on and started watching. I noticed that I was laying on something and it hurt, I pulled it out, and it was the remote. I started to remember that I wanted to hide it, but I couldn't remember why, then it hit me, Crap! My control must have been in my sheets, and I roll around in my sleep so I must have knocked the TV power button turning the set on. That is the last time I let my 12-year old sister make my bed.     I had made it 16 hours, but had failed, out of habit. Whenever I'm home, I wake up and turn the TV on. Those 16 hours were pretty difficult. There was media everywhere in the house. Normally I text friends or surf the Internet, but this was hard. I wanted to scream, someti mes I broke into a cold sweat. It felt like I couldn't do anything without breaking the rules. I rely way too much on technology. I could have read a book for school, but I forgot the page numbers and it was on the syllabus, on the Internet. I am constantly texting or doing work on the computer. Sometimes I can't do homework without the television on. At home, I normally nap with the TV on, which is why I didn't freak out when I awoke to it being on.    I expected it to be painful, but not as painful as it turned out to be. I rely way too much on the media. Half the time I have my computer on the Internet while watching television so I can look up random information that is said on television or look up words said that I don't know. I feel that that is the norm in today's society. Eevrything is dependent on the media. Even books are electronic, thanks to Amazon's Kindle. Bluetooth allows people to talk hands free. Many places have free wi-fi because people need to have access to the internet at all times. Even the new Yankee Stadium will be completely wireless. People need to be constantly connected. The best example of this that I can think of is that there are now wireless cards that allow people to be on the Internet, on airplanes.     Overall, I learned that while it is possible to go through an entire day without media, society in itself makes it tough. Dana Walker even said that allowed her students to  realize that their friends who they talked to a lot were no where near them geographically. I coldn't talk to my friend in Detroit or the one in Anahiem for a day because I couldn't text or instant message them. I never realized that friednships like this would be hard to maintain without technology. I'd like to leave with this thought, One of Walker's students said she wasn't ashamed over her media use, and I have to agree. As previously mentioned, the media of today is part of our culture and it won't change, and it never will go back to the way things were years ago. Most people don't read the newspaper, they read the articles on-line. The average newspaper readership is about the age of 50 and up. This age is more technical than any before, and it can only get "worse". But, truth be told, that's just fine with me.

TV vs The Written Language-Which has More Control in Our Society

When reading the essay entitled "The Two Culters-Television versus Print" I couldn't help but stand behind the side of television as defended by University of the Arts (Philadelphia) professor Camille Paglia over NYU professor Neil Postman.

The debate is raged over a meal of fish at a restaurant which adds a nice backdrop to the conversation at hand. Their food selection occasionally makes its way into the conversation and does a wonderful job of separating issues, basically as a new food comes a new part of the debate begins. Now, that's all I have to say about the setting it's time to explain why Paglia is absolutely correct in this argument.

The debate begins with a verse from the Bible "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"-John 1:3. Paglia immediately attacks this statement saying that "In the beginning was nature" which she says creates opposition, whether it is via an image, such as an idol, or something else, and this Nature (yes, a capital N) "predates and stands in opposition to the ordered, structured world created by the word." I believe she is correct in this; the world may be under control by word, but nature will always control the variables of the world. By this I mean that nature will always be able to control everything that can change in the world and these are the thing that Word fights to control.

The next argument, though it has nothing to do with television but everything to do with proving word is not superior, of Paglia that caught my attention was the mentioning of Martin Luther being an example against Word. Traditionally Martin Luther is associated with the rise of written language and literacy, as well as breaking free from oral theocracy of the times,  in religion through his use of the printing press to spread his message and religion. Paglia took a different approach, stating that visual imagery, an early comparison to television, spread among the "poor, outcast, and unlearned" which is what led to idolatry and the Protestant Reformation. 

Paglia's next argument put me firmly on her side. When Postman argues that the challenge in literacy is to get children accustomed to sitting still so they can be literate, Paglia argues that while many people are just naturally inclined of the sedentary lifestyle required by reading, many others are brilliant but have learning deficiencies can use physical activities and other visual art forms to express themselves. I am one who cannot sit still when reading. I am not going to lie when reading the essay I sat, leaned on and laid down on my bed among others things just to keep focused on finishing and taking in everything in the reading. I use my camera to show my emotions and express myself, and I enjoy allowing my movies to stir emotions in people and allow them to want to go and express themselves too, literacy doesn't ned to be the only form of expression in this world et alone this country.

I found myself thinking similar to Paglia as well, she talks about needing to have the television on and/or headphones blasting rock music on to write her paper. I myself, half the time, find i have had the television on while writing a paper and when I turn it off it feels too quiet so I turn it back on. I also enjoy, like most current high school and college students, listening to my iPod as I work, for some reason it helps me focus. It has also helped here at school because as Paglia herself put it, rather well I may add, "TV is a medium that makes us feel at home". 

Lets face it television is a large part of our society, Paglia says people in our society today know how to read television. She brings up the example of the 1988 presidential election when everyone was calling George H.W. Bush a wimp or a ninny just trying to chase the shadow of Ronald Reagan. Paglia points out how Bush transformed before everyones eyes when he picked Dan Quayle (later on of Murphy Brown fame) as his running mate. When Bush picked him he had made a "rite de passage"  on and for television. Paglia says Bush became a new man, stern confident, and "completely in charge" all because he had picked a symbolical son on National television. She continues to say that if you didn't know how to read television you would have completely missed the entire transformation.

The final issue in which Paglia and I agree is that the ideal education should be logocentric. By this it is meant that, according to Paglia, "The student must learn the logical, hierarchal system." TV will then allow the other part of the mind to freely move outside of the system. She says television based culture culture can develop mental flexibility, to which I agree, children must learn how to deal with concepts that are on television such as what is right and what is wrong, figuring out how to solve issues before them, and even understanding that the television is not reality. TV is not reality but is as close and true to reality as one is going to get, by the way it asks you to change emotions so quickly and abruptly, it allows us to put a different look on life, which is why I feel television beats print.

Election Coverage Drenched in Purple Rain

The most intriguing and barely noticed fact of the media coverage of the election was the color purple.

I am not referring tho the Alice Walker novel, or the movie or play of a the same name, but the actual hue.

What I mean is that in an effort to appear unbiased in any way, many network anchors and reporters wore 

purple or purple ties to show non partisanship. They could have worn yellow, orange, or green, but since blue

and red make purple, it seems like a reasonable choice.

According to espn.com writer Paul Lukas' uniform blog on November 5th, dozens of reporters on election night 

wore the color those in Baltimore and Minnesota associate with their football teams. Please press play and turn your volume up before reading the next part. 

When watching coverage I could not help but have Prince's "Purple Rain" 

rushing through my head as background music. He even made a T.V. screen  grab compilation 

(provided by his readers' submissions) of purple clad reporters including this shot which has 

an anchor with a purple straw in her drink. It is a pretty odd phenomenon, but if it makes the network honchos

feel good enough to sleep at night then they can go ahead and do it for all I care. Most people are smart enough 

to realize which way the networks usually slant and choose which one to watch based on this.

Overall, though, the media did a good job in delivering election coverage. Being politically non-partisan is

hard, but on election night all networks were forced to try and do it. Networks did the best job they could at 

delivering the news without appearing biased. Even when Barack Obama mathematically locked up the race 

by winning Ohio, the networks tried to wait the half an hour until west coast polls closed before calling the 

election for Obama. They went out of their way to fill air time; CNN interviewed musician Will I Am via, as 

unusual as this may sound, hologram in that time, while other networks just went over the mathematics of 

the situation.

Networks did gamble by projecting states for Obama and McCain as soon as the polls closed based 

on traditional values, mainly calling the election for Obama as soon as polls closed in California which was 

declared for Obama with 0% reporting. Fox News, what many consider epitome of conservative media, was 

the first network to give Obama the victory in Virginia, as well as being the only one to have given him the 

state when he was declared the winner. NBC, the supposed epitome of "Liberal Media", was very reserved 

in waiting to call any state for either candidate. All the networks, though, did best when the election was 

declared over to let the camera do the talking. By this I mean anchors and talking heads alike shut their 

mouths and let the candidates and supporters emotions show everything. The transition from McCain's 

concession speech to Barack Obama's speech had little to no words. The speeches had no commentary 

while being said, nor were any quotes from the candidates, typically inserted below the picture to show 

what the candidate had just said, shown. 

Other than two of the three major networks (NBC and ABC) referring to the Obama victory as a 

landslide during their morning news programs, when in fact the win was about 5 percentage points and 

not the huge victory they predicted, the coverage was pretty fair. The media let emotions cover the 

election's end game, not the other way around.

 

Works Cited

"Uni Watch" 5 Nov. 2008 <www.uniwatchblog.com>

Consumption and Advertising

Back in 1900, expositions were all the rage. An exposition, you see, was a rather large fair, and this one in particular was in Paris to celebrate the arrival of a new century. Now, according to Rosalynd Williams in her essay entitled Dream Worlds of Consumption, the purpose of these gatherings were to, as they said back then, “teach a 'lesson of things.'" In this case, "things" means the new scientific knowledge just established, and the "lesson" being the social benefits this newfound knowledge could bring. 

This exposition, though, had a longer lasting impact on society because it led to the creation of the department store. This allowed people to browse and look at whatever they wanted. It was free advertising because the prices were set, and consumers didn't need to buy things at that time. Potential buyers were just that, potential. They could be just looking now so they could plan to get something later on. Companies could put out their products for everyone to see, and even if someone didn't buy the product, they now knew of the product/company, and had it in mind for purchases later on. 

Advertisers soon learned that most people wanted to hear certain things, and that was why they developed a rhetoric of "mass man". People wanted the truth, and the truth is what usually would and will lead people to become successful. But the truth itself can be boring, so why not spice it up a bit. Basically, the truth, with a little showmanship, is what really caught the eye of most consumers. The point being made here is that as advertising evolved, so did the consumer society. This is simply because consumer society was not just growing compliance with mass media, but because as mass media grew it established itself within the new society. Jackson Lears' essay Advertising And The Idea of Mass Society, stated a quote from a 1912 issue of Judicious Advertising in which a contributor described advertising as "the spark to the selling engine." Things could not be sold and the economy would not work without advertisement.

Advertising today is more of the same; grab people's attention and get them to invest in your product. While skimming through a recent issue of ESPN The Magazine (the one I bought just because reigning NHL MVP and hockey demi-god Alexander Ovechkin of the Washington Capitals was on the cover), I noticed an advertisement that caught my eye. In huge, white, block letters outlined in purple, I saw what appeared to be three words:"FEELIN' KINDA SUNDAY". When looking closer, I noticed that above the three purple outlined words was a, much, smaller sentence reading "IT'S ONLY SATURDAY NIGHT, BUT I'M." Now, that’s what got my attention initially. What secondarily got my attention would be the well-dressed woman (blonde and good looking, what else could she be, but not my type, too chauvinistic, I guess), looking in the mirror while using her make-up to apply war paint to look like a football player. It's an ad for State Farm because at the bottom of the page, in even smaller letters, the page reads "When you're there, State Farm's there, for the best day of the week.” There is also the State Farm logo with an NFL Logo below because not only is State Farm a sponsor of the NFL, but a damn proud sponsor at that. My initial reaction was that this company is only trying to get men who are attracted to the woman and possibly some people looking for insurance, and also that it was stupid.

The advertisement looks the way it does so it can grab the reader’s attention and drag him/her in. To do this it uses two key elements, the first being the large letters (which especially grabbed my attention because I’m ADHD and it was shiny, big and purple) and, of course, the blonde bombshell applying the war paint to her face. This applies to the fact that most advertisers believe that sex sells in this society, which it does. It also applies to the ideals that Americans love football, something few would disagree with. There are so many media outlets devoted to football that it's ridiculous. And as non-sensical as this may sound, it applies to the dreams of the society that doesn't believe all women should just stay home. It's applying to the dreams that women can be big sports fans, dress nice and go out, and of course, the dream that insurance companies will be there for your needs on weekends.

The advertising looks promising because State Farm is brought upon three different parts of the page; the web site is listed on the bottom left, State Farm is mentioned under the giant block letters, and the logo and name are on the bottom right corner. People who are looking for insurance will look at this and remember the name to look it up.

After carefully studying the image, my thoughts on it have changed—although just slightly, while I still think that State Farm was just trying to get people (sigh...men) to see the woman and immediately want to get or at least look up their insurance rates and policies, I now feel that the advertisers who created it were quite smart, and that the ad was not stupid at all. In fact it was very clever. It was trying to get people to realize that these guys are always there (like a good neighbor), even on weekends when everyone is either out socializing or watching football. I now feel that it succeeded in its goals of catching the reader’s attention, getting the message about its policy out, and, of course, making sure everyone knows they are a proud sponsor of the NFL. Then again, though, these days everyone seems to be a proud sponsor of the NFL, I wonder why can't someone be the proud sponsor of me?

 

Obama Wins Debate--Sort Of...

I noticed several things while watching last Friday's Presidential debate, but one detail that stood out the most was the fact that neither candidate really took the offensive-- as is discovered in this blog written by Joe Klein.

As a John McCain supporter, even I feel that Barack Obama came off as the victor in this debate, not necessarily by his own doing, but thanks to the overly aggressive tactics of McCain, which seemed to fail him repeatedly. Klein explains this point brilliantly when he says "McCain was clearly the aggressor in this debate and that may have worked to his advantage—Obama graciously admitted when he agreed with McCain; McCain rarely acknowledged Obama in that or any other way. The problem with McCain's aggressiveness was that it almost always involved misstating Obama's positions—on offshore drilling, nuclear power, talking to our enemies, raising taxes on the middle class, attacking Pakistan." 

I must admit when first watching the debate, especially when discussing relations with Pakistan and Middle Eastern countries, Obama seemed almost nasty when responding to McCain, but the Republican nominee came off as so, almost condescending, towards Obama at points, that it was hard for almost anyone to pick up the Democratic nominee's extremely defensive manner.

One of the most interesting topics that arose in the debate came from the question "What is threat from Iran to the U.S.?" Obama brought up some fascinating points, including talking about how we should meet with allies and enemies. McCain criticized Obama for saying how he would sit down with Communist leaders of the world without "pre-conditions,"and while Obama seemed to skirt around the pre-conditions inquiry, he clearly explained why he would do it. Obama said that when the United States broke off ties with North Korea, that country increased their capabilities of nuclear war and violence, and how when we began to talk with them again they cleaned up (slightly). When McCain answered back, he seemed jumpy and off topic, including talking about height differences between citizens of North and South Korea, an answer that, in my mind, had little or nothing to do with the question. 

My overall impression of the debate was very similar to that of Klein. I personally felt that while Obama wasn't perfect, he made less noticeable mistakes then McCain did, and refused to look rattled. Klein felt that  "Obama did everything he had to do, with few if any mistakes. I thought McCain did less so." He then goes on to say that "the early snap polling seems to agree with me," and indeed, it seems the media agrees with him, Obama won the debate. 

In fact, many news sources gave Obama the win. The Detroit Free Press had a fascinating article talking about how Obama won despite being "spanked" by McCain, insinuating that the media feels that Obama won, but McCain's tactics actually allowed him to not lose, but also not to win. "But what McCain doesn't understand is that a tie in the only debate he was expected to win could cost him the White House."

All the major media outlets were in Mississippi fir the debate, and all had several analysts to do the instant analysis. In fact, The Washington Post had live fact checkers researching and proving or disproving statements made by the candidates. It was front page news on all major news sources. Overall, the debate was big news, and since it was covered so well it was easy to see when the candidates failed to capitalize on opportunities to attack.

Obama was and continues to seem weak on foreign policy, but when he left the door open by not really improving on it for the debate, McCain chose to focus more on domestic policy, rather than really putting a stranglehold on the foreign policy issue. The debate was mostly more of the same. McCain failed to seize what could have been a big opportunity to control the debate. In the end, this seemed like a debate that McCain did way too much to help Obama win. The question now is how it affects the elections.

Work Cited

Brown, Willie. "Obama Wins Round 1" San Francisco Chronicle 28. Sept.2008. Accessed 30.Sept.2008. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/28/BAAG135POG.DTL>

Dobbs, Michael. "The Fact Checker" 26.Sept.2008. Accessed 30. Sept.2008. <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/debate_live_fact_check_starts.html>

Klein, Joe. "Obama Wins Debate on Tactics and Strategies" Time 27.Sept. 2008. Accessed 29. Sept. 2008.<http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845114,00.html>

Luna, Jorge. "Obama Wins Debate, But it Seems Unfair" Miami Law & Politics Examiner 27.Sept. 2008. Accessed 30. Sept. 2008. <http://www.examiner.com/x-948-Miami-Law--Politics-Examiner~y2008m9d27-Obama-wins-debate-but-it-seems-unfair>

Riley, Rochelle. "Obama Wins Debate After McCain Spanks Him" Detroit Free Press 27.Sept.2008. Accessed 30. Sept. 2008. <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/BLOG08/80927012&imw=Y>

Speech vs Writing- The Epic Battle for Modern Supremacy

Since the dawn of man, communication has played a vital role in how we interact and live. No matter where one defines the beginning, there has always been some kind of speech. Whether it was a groan, noise, or actual words remain to be seen, but what we do know is that speech is needed for one to live properly. When early man starting using symbols as a way of showing data, it was the beginning of writing. With the evolution of man and the growing technology that comes along with it, the issue has arisen as to which method, speech or writing, is superior in today's society.Without writing it could be said that life as we know it would cease to exist.
First, it should be shown that speech is almost just as important, but without speech in today's society, it would be difficult, but still possible to live. There are, in fact, individuals who are mute due to stroke, psychological problems, paralysis, or other reasons. They find ways of communicating without speech, if speech is defined as verbal communication.
According to the book Communication In History, the earliest precursor to writing were symbols and signs, the first of which was the use of ocher (discovered in Qafzeh, Israel), a red pigment that is believed to have served a symbolic function. More common were notches on rocks or sticks, pebbles in a pile. Later on, the use of coins began, starting with coins being differentiated based on shape, numbers of marks, as well as other distinctions. These symbols were used to trade goods and symbolize things, no one is quite sure what the notches stand for but it is obvious they stood for an amount of something. The shapes and symbols on the coins were believed to determine how much or what type of goods a person could receive. If early man used these methods to develop their simplistic society, it must be even more important in today's society.
Let's look at the modern world without writing. People would have no way of showing data or signs of warning. Traffic would be frightening with no stop signs, no yields and no way of seeing street names(which would make it especially difficult on men because we are too proud and stubborn to ask for directions). Grocery shopping would be tragic; are you buying a bag of mashed potatoes or laundry detergent? Oh well, let's wait for dinner to find out. These things may make things difficult, but they aren't the answer to the question being asked. We need to see why writing is so superior to speech in today's society.
An easy answer to the question would be, of course, the Internet, which is a never-ending source of text, videos, photos, and online auctions. The Internet is an essential and crucial part of today's society. Colleges(such as UMBC) have campus-wide wireless networks, sports games are being web-casted, and even Presidential ads are being put on the Internet. Computers have replaced the card catalogues in libraries, and most students can research anything on a computer and print out what they need instead of signing out a book. E-mail has almost virtually replaced letters and postcards. The snail mail has lost its touch.Why wait two days to answer somebody when you can answer them in two minutes? In a Washington Post article titled "The Dumbing of America," author Susan Jacoby states that "No wonder negative political ads work. With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker" With the Internet and text, it is easier to see decisions and remarks made by politicians and others in the past. Barrack Obama could have said something when he was running for Senate a few years back, and thanks to the Internet, John McCain can bring up this long forgotten speech and use it to hurt Obama. Basically, with everything written down and stored somewhere, it is easy for people to validate points and issues that may arise.
At this current time, writing is as important as ever-- if not more. There is now an essay portion on the SATs. Essays are replacing quizzes and tests in classrooms, and colleges require one if not more essays and writing samples to be turned in to not only determine placement, but living arrangements, scholarships, and even campus privileges.
In this day and age, proper spelling and writing is essential. Many children are using Internet grammar; lol (laughing out loud) and c u l8r (see you later),in actual everyday situations. My 12-year-old sister doesn't talk on the phone at all; she texts, constantly. In my experience on my middle school's literary magazine, we had several people submit wonderfully written pieces that were filled with some of the worst spellings I've ever seen. The works were rampant with shortened spellings like " u" replacing "you," and "luv" replacing "love", and it was sad because over half of the submissions were like this. For those who do learn how to write properly, many jobs and opportunities await.
Writing and reading will never die because they are both too important to society. Washington Post writer Howard Gardner brought up this point in his article entitled "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading," when he says "I don't worry for a nanosecond that reading and writing will disappear. Even in the new digital media, it's essential to be able to read and write fluently and,if you want to capture people's attention, to write well."
Now it could be said that the ability for someone to speak well is just as important, but consider this- you can't hear a person who can't speak, but you can read what they have to write. Internet forums and blogs allow these people to talk to others that are going through the same issues as them. Some people aren't good speakers, but they are great writers and it shows that they have the same intelligent capabilities as anyone else. And writing well still reflects one's education and intelligence.
Basically, without the element of writing, today's society would be nothing. Writing lets us check facts by reading information that must be answered immediately (such as going to imdb.com to find out which actor played someone in a movie). It lets us communicate with others to inform,entertain, and persuade.
Imagine what it would be like to lose your voice and not speak.You would be frustrated (although my friends and family would probably throw a wild party if it happened to me), but you'd get by. Now imagine what a world without the World Wide Web, books, newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals and research, street signs and text messages would be like. What would business be like without e-mails and faxes? It's tough to imagine, isn't it. For this reason, on the scale of speech vs. writing, writing tips the scale in today's society.

WORK CITED

Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. "Communication In History" Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 2007

Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading". The Washington Post.Sunday Feb 17, 2008. Page B01

Jacoby, Susan. "Call Me a Snob, but Really,We're a Nation of Dunces". The Washington Post.
Sunday Feb 17, 2008. Page B01

Palin Pick Gives McCain New Life

One of the political issues of importance throughout the summer was who the Vice Presidential picks were going to be. Right before the Democratic National Convention, Barrack Obama picked Delaware Senator Joe Biden, a member of the Senate since 1972, in what many believed as a pick Obama used to get experience on his ticket. This gave Obama all the attention throughout the following week, but then John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In Drudge Report, the blog I chose to follow, there was an article written by Camille Paglia, about the fact that McCain (whom she calls a vampire) breathed in new life when selecting Palin. Paglia even goes so far as to say that Palin could be one of the best things to happen to feminism. When one thinks about it, Palin is exactly what McCain as well as the republicans need. She is, well, different. Her kids are non-typically named; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Also, she enjoys fishing and hunting (typical conservative ideals). She knows the military as her son Track enlisted last year, and she can almost match Obama when it comes to public speaking abilities. She embodies a form of feminism that Paglia calls "can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism." It truly is different from what we are used to seeing out of politically powerful women, such as Hillary Clinton who is most famous for being the First Lady.

The choice of Palin has sent the media into a frenzy. Not even a hurricane hitting New Orleans could stop the new Palin powerhouse. The pick came a day after Obama ended the Democratic National Convention by making a speech at the 50 yard line at Invesco

Field at Mile High Stadium (home of the Denver Broncos) in front of an estimated 84,000-plus people.

The media was buzzing over the speech, but when McCain announced Palin as his VP pick late the next morning, it was if Obama's speech never happened. All the news was on this nearly unheard of female governor of Alaska who, in addition to the above, played basketball in high school. It was if all the momentum Obama had picked up in the previous few weeks had all but disappeared. In fact, according to Amazon.com bestseller list, a book on how Sarah Palin positively changed Alaska as governor is now outselling books about Obama.

Palin represents a new femist type, as previously mentioned. She is a tomboy, plain and simple. When one usually thinks of a women politician, at least for me, the first thing that comes to mind is usually a well educated older woman who would not only not use guns, but also not want to kill an innocent animal(although she might not have a problem wearing one at a black-tie political fundraiser). Palin is middle-age, educated, hockey-mom hunter who also happens to be the governor of the largest state (geographically) in this country. She is, as Paglia describes, reminiscent of the frontier women who got women of the west the right to vote long before the 19th amendment was passed. She is different from what this country has seen before, and even if she and McCain were to lose, her name is now out there and she could do things for women that could change this country.

It appears, though, that McCain's choice of Palin is paying off. According to an article on Bloomberg.com, McCain has jumped ahead of Obama in several national polls and even in others. He is now drawing bigger crowds than ever before, and energizing the Republican party. The article states that "McCain's choice of Palin ' allowed the McCain campaign to change the narrative away from McCain as an extension of Bush,' said Democratic strategist Jenny Backus" 

Obama's appeal appears to be wearing off, especially with his choice of Biden over Hillary Clinton, and his record fundraising is declining. Meanwhile over on the right, the future never looked so bright as Sarah Palin has changed the face of this entire election and could keep the Republicans in charge for at least four more years.

Works Cited

• "Governor Palin's Biography." Accessed 10 Sept. 2008. <http://gov.state.ak.us/>.
• "Joe Biden." accessed  10 Sept. 2008. <http://biden.senate.gov/senator/>.
• Nagourney, Adam. Zeleny, Jeff. "Obama's Pick Adds Foreign Expertise to Ticket." The New York Times 23 Aug. 2008. Accessed 10 Sept.2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/politics/24veep.html?ref=politics>.
  
• Paglia, Camille. "Fresh Blood for the Vampire." Salon.com 10 Sept. 2008. <http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html>.
• Przybyla, Heidi. "McCain Poll Surge, Fundraising Give Democrats Election Jitters." 10 Sept. 2008 <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk>.
• Stapleton, Arnie. "Obama Speech: More Than 84,000 Attend." The Huffington Post 28 Aug. 2008. Accessed 10 Sept.2008.  .
• "The Office of Governor Sarah Palin." Accessed 10 Sept. 2008.<http://www.eeo.state.ak.us/bio.html>.