The Evolution of Journalism [The Media: Citizen Kane (1941)]

From rags to wood-pulp newspaper, to black and white to colored television, to the Internet and social media, the ways we read our news are constantly changing with technological developments. As a result, journalism is forced to adapt and some political scientists argue that the writers are forgetting their jobs.
Citizen Kane (1941) portrays traditional journalism. Journalist Jerry Thompson investigates the death of Charles Foster Kane (played by Orson Welles) and the meaning of his last words. Thompson trespasses onto Kane's estate, questions Kane's friends, co-workers, ex-wife, boss, butler and even locates Kane's childhood guardian.

While researching Kane's lifestyle, viewers discover that Kane manipulated newspaper headlines to help him with politics and inspire certain opinions within the general public. A successful and dedicated journalist, Thompson works constantly to reveal all of Kane's secrets. Viewers learn of Kane's childhood poverty, love affairs, corrupt political career, and depression. This movie, produced in the 1940's, depicts the role of a journalist - to expose corruption and act as a detective. Journalists in the 2000's worry more about profit than exposing political corruption.

According to political scientist David Smith, in "Wood Pulp and Newspapers (1964)" between 1867 up until the 1920's, the nation struggled to find a steady alternative to rags for newspaper creation. Before the development of wood-pulp as paper, the prices for newspapers and taxes for rags (the material previously used for newspapers) reached incredibly high levels. The paper industry experimented with everything including grass, straw, basswood, bamboo and many more. By the late 1860’s, pulp-paper mills aroused and slowly dominated production with new inventions for efficiency and quality. Smith states that American dailies nearly doubled between 1890 and 1900. He interprets this data as evidence of dependence from the urban population, more demand for daily paper, and the biggest increase in newspaper history. Although this phenomena was stunted by a new invention...

Exactly twenty years later, in "The Public's Use and the Perception of Newspapers (1984)", political scientist Leo Bogart examines the relationship between newspapers and television, the challenges of newspaper editors after the development of television news broadcasts, and the public’s opinion on the two. Bogart establishes several interesting distinctions. For example, college graduates feel the newspaper is more reliable than television. Second, Bogart explains that most readers (84%) are interesting in international news. Other popular topics include jobs, inflation and the economy. Overall, people watch television just as equally as they read the paper. The majority feels that television helps them understand the story, but that the paper provides further details. With time, more and more people purchased televisions. TV even released in color. So more and more people began to spend more time with the television than the paper.

Now, nearly another thirty years later, since the development of the World Wide Web in the 1990's, the combination of television and internet have crippled the demand for hard copy newspapers. In order to stay hip, newspapers are forced to publish all articles online and even allow access from smart phones. Not only has the style of newspapers changed, many argue the content has too. In "Democracy in the Information Age: The Role of the Fourth Estate in Cyberspace (2001)," political scientist Howard Tumber discusses the recent changes in journalism, primarily due to the globalization of media and the development of communications technology. Tumber wonders if journalists can still accomplish their traditional role where they reveal corrupt government activity and provide citizens with accurate and reliable facts. In accordance with a demand for entertainment, news broadcasters now focus on scandal and gossip in order to maximize profits. I am not surprised that journalism and news broadcasting hopped on the profit priority bandwagon, but I am disgusted. A once honorable and intelligent career has transformed into a biased, entertainment based circus. People struggle to distinguish opinion from fact, relevant from irrelevant and would rather hear about a politician's affairs than his/her platforms.

Several researchers suggest that journalists reinvent themselves by calling for citizen participation by allowing commentary. People want to be able to respond and ask questions after reading an article. Perhaps this is why social media and blogs have become so trendy. Journalists should continue to promote democracy and unveil corrupt government. Of course, journalists aren't the only one who have a duty for this revolution. Citizens must demand truth and scold news stations for reporting stories as distractions from bigger issues, or for pure entertainment. Citizens must refuse to accept bullshit and support traditional journalism.

Up in Smoke [Interest Groups: Thank You For Smoking (2005)]

I can't imagine living twenty, thirty, forty years ago when smoking was still socially acceptable. When one of my non-smoker friends, or even worse a professor or boss, discovers my disgusting habit, I feel like a puppy that just stained the new carpet.

In "Punctuated Equilibrium in Limbo: The Tobacco and U.S. State Policymaking from 1990 to 2003," Michael Givel explains that according to equilibrium theory, policy monopolies are stable for long periods of time and usually change due to quick shocks to the system. Note that Givel declares that from 1990 to 2003, policy favored the tobacco industry with only minimal anti-smoking changes in certain states. Almost ten years later, policy no longer favors the company (at least not in New Jersey) for the mandatory cigarette price is extremely high (around $8.50/pack), smoking is banned indoors and in public places, and strict warning labels must be on all boxes. What caused this? Perhaps a social trend to be healthy? Nonetheless, smokers are still smoking, but maybe more in secrecy. 

The tobacco industry is still worth million of dollars, but there is no denying what the health advocates did to its reputation. From the anti-smoking commercials to the flyers to the designated Anti-Smoking week on campus, it is hard not to feel ashamed as a smoker. If only this was enough for me to quit. So how did the industry manage to stay afloat?

According to Harvey Sapolsky in "The Political Obstacles to the Control of Cigarette Smoking in the United States," the marketing skills, political skills, political connections, amazing legal counsel, and intense biased research team are among the resources that keep people smoking. Of course, people are also continuing to smoke because they are addicted! Givel also acknowledges the financial abundance that assists big businesses, calling this phenomena neopluralist theory. He further claims that such an advantage unfairly influences policy. A sad but true fact. Money buys everything from freedom and innocence in a trial (eg: O.J. Simpson) to the policies and laws made in Congress.

What is worse? Lobbying for the boges or being addicted to them? In Thank You For Smoking Aaron Eckhart stars as Nick Naylor, vice president of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. When questioned how he promotes smoking, Naylor always replies, "Everyone has to pay the mortgage." And my personal favorite: "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you are never wrong." Aside from the humorous catch phrases, Naylor also gives perspective to business end of the cigarette controversy.
On an individual level, yes, smoking increases one's risk for cancer, heart disease and a serious of other complications. But on a government level, the result is not so bad.  Sapolsky reports that in 1980, excise taxes from tobacco products brought in $6 billion with $2.3 billion going to the federal government and $3.7 billion going to state and local governments. The businesses selling the cancer sticks are bringing in millions too. Now, over thirty years later, cigarette prices have drastically raised. According to RJ Reynolds, governments on all levels made more than $44.5 billion dollars from tobacco tax in 2011. Ironically, the government actually profits more than the retailers, manufacturers and farmers combined.

As people are still smoking, and businesses are still profiting, people are still protesting cigarettes. Historian Robert Proctor fights to educate those on the health damages and claims that dog and cat food are more strictly regulated. Proctor also discusses the marketing techniques and hopes for more regulation in the future.


The struggle between the tobacco industry and health advocates began nearly forty years ago, and still continues. The horrors of drugs and alcohol are evident too, but people still continue to indulge in these vices. Perhaps, this battle will never end. Let the smoker smoke, the drinker drink and the fat man eat cake.

The Fourth Branch of Government [The Bureaucracy: Brazil (1985)]

Everyone loves to criticize the bureaucracy -- for, "the lady at the DMV was rude and lackadaisical! I spent six hours waiting to get my driver's license renewed." Fortunately, America is slightly better off than the characters in Brazil (1985). In the film, the Ministry of Information falsely convict Mr. Buttle instead of Mr. Tuttle. Ultimately, Buttle somehow dies, and the Kutzman and Sam Lowery stumble upon their mistake. In order to fix the forbidden error, the two create a refund check for Mrs. Buttle. Of course Mrs. Buttle is furious and demands to know where her husband's body is. The reaction between Mrs. Buttle and Mr. Lowery symbolizes the twisted relationship between citizens and bureaucrats. Director Terry Gillam isn't the only one who depicts this:

Some political scientists take the disapproval a step further, charging the bureaucracies with inefficiency and excessive spending.

In "Don't Blame the Bureaucracy," H. Brinton Milward, a bureaucrat in the Department of Management and Hal G. Rainey, a bureaucrat in the Department of Public Administration, seek to defend bureaucracies, crying that they are merely scapegoats. The authors explain that advising the agencies to act like a business is hopeless for society’s prioritize transparency and equality. Milward and Rainey also point out that government often faces contradicting and complex goals that are further complicated by special interests and Congress.

More so than not, people label ALL government institutions as corrupt. Perhaps the agencies are "extra," corrupt because so many other crooked bodies are demanding solutions. In "Political Influence on the Bureaucracy: The Bureaucracy Speaks," Scott Furlong concludes that through the perspective of agency officials, Congress and the executive branch are most influential. In independent regulatory commissions, interest groups and the courts are more influential.

Instead of bitching while typing away on your laptops still in your pajamas, Americans need to participate more! With more input from citizens, agencies can weigh the wants from us and the government. It turns out some of us are actively communicating - senior citizens. In "Close Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Older Americans and Bureaucracy," Steven A. Peterson reports on the influence senior citizens have on bureaucracies calculating in the individuals' needs, awareness and assumption that contacting an agency is political participation. Peterson concludes that a citizen is more likely to use a bureaucratic program (such as Social Security or Food Stamps) if there is need, group consciousness and low political efficacy. Political efficacy is the power one has to have the impact they want. Second, Peterson concludes that citizens are more likely to contact an agent official with high efficacy, interest, education, group consciousness, and less need.

Perhaps, Peterson only surveyed senior citizens because the rest of us were too busy on blogging or on Facebook. Bye. 

Justice vs. The Law [The Judiciary: 12 Angry Men (1957)]

Everyday citizens control the fate of alleged criminals through jury deliberation. I am not sure how to feel about this. Can we trust fellow man to establish the truth proposed in a court case? Some of whom may be uneducated, impatient, unconcerned or easily manipulated. According to political scientists Erin York and Benjamin Cornwell in "Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room," upper-class male jurors have the most influence over verdicts. Therefore, when the more reserved and shy juror or the lower-class inner city man speaks, his opinions are seldom taken seriously. The strong-willed, attractive and successful jurors control the conversation. York and Cornwell wonder if the unsettling news brings distrust for the justice system from the lower and middle class. As a member of the middle class, I'll say that it does not make me happy but it does not particularly bother me either. If proven true within deliberation, this fact is also true in everyday life. This is just another reason to work hard and hope it pays off.

There's a larger issue within the jury deliberation process. According to political scientists Douglas W. Maynard and John F. Manzo in "On the Sociology of the Jusitce: Theoretical Notes from an Actual Jury Deliberation," jurors struggled to understand the role of the jury. Going into a jury deliberation jurors are given instructions by the judge. But as shown in Maynard and Manzo's research, morality may push participants to go beyond this, for justice must be served. Should, as Colbert puts it, "truthiness" or one's gut feeling and moral compass be relevant to determining a verdict? Or is discretion only on the judge's agenda?

In season six of Rumpole of the Bailey in the episode "a la Carte," the attorney bickers with the judge and lectures to the jury: "You are not concerned with the law, members of the jury, you are concerned with justice."

In "Against Deliberation," Lynn Sanders, a political scientist defines deliberation as, "...commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements, and overcome conflicts by offering arguments supported by reasons to our fellow citizens." It is nearly impossible to accomplish the prior without at least consulting right and wrong. Jurors must find the balance of incorporating the law and the specifics at hand.

In 12 Angry Men, the foreign juror mentions the responsibility of a citizen of a democracy to embrace this strength and leave personal interests aside.  Yes! Jurors must be careful not to let discrimination, previous record and imagination determine a verdict, but only evidence determined fact, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Portrayed beautifully in the film, twelve jurors struggled with the concept. At first, 11 to 1 the men are convinced a Latino boy murdered his father. One man, a visibly upper-class architect, slowly convinces the jurors to vote innocent. The movie concludes with a unanimous not guilty.

To sum up, life and laws will never be simple, never solvable through formulas.

Help Your Candidate by Using Facebook [Campaigns & Elections: The Candidate (1972)]

During week 3, my Politics and Film course watched The Candidate (1972) where character Bill McCay runs for senator in California against Jarmen Crocker. Overall, the movie themes include a politician's credibility, civic participation, platform, and class system. During the major debate scene, the two men bicker over education, environment, abortion (women's rights) and crime. The Candidate released in 1972, and although all of its statements on campaigns still remain true, the 21st century introduced a few new ways of campaigning: SOCIAL MEDIA!

According to Mayhew's review of "The Electoral Connection (1974)", the primary goal of candidates running for Congress is to get reelected. Politicians typically participate in three activities:
1: Advertising
2: Credit Claiming:
3: Position Taking
All three are easier for incumbents, a member who already holds office, for he/she wins in Congress 90% of the time! New participants must keep up with the trends by creating Facebook and Twitter accounts to advertise themselves.

So, are candidates actually using Social Media?
Political scientists Christine Williams and Jeff Gulati prove that the use of social media in campaigns significantly increased during the elections from 2006 to 2008 in "Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and Congressional Elections 2006, 2008 (2009)." Since 2008, Facebook and Twitter use further increased. In fact, political scientists, Antoinette Pole and Michael Xenos point out that in the 2010 gubernational elections, between 66% and 72% of candidates used Facebook and Twitter.

Typically, instead of having Facebook profiles, politicians have Facebook pages where other users can, "like," the page to review activity, comment, etc. Even President Barack Obama has a Facebook page. I happen to follow Obama on Twitter and he follows back every single person. Between interviewing with Jimmy Kimmel and fundraising with Jay-Z and Beyonce at, Obama is hip and certainly getting the attention of young voters.

Speaking of, I wonder if his activity has increased with the impending presidential election! Williams and Gulati also state that the more competitive the race, the more likely incumbents and newcomers are to utilize social media.

In other words, Congress, presidential candidates and even governors advertise platforms through social media. Both incumbents and newcomers use social media, but are more likely to show activity when a race is competitive and close to voting day. I guess this means Barack, Mitt, Joe and Paul are busting out their iPhones and tweeting away! Well, their employees certainly are.

Do women use social media?
Women are just as likely to incorporate social media into campaigns as men. Although women are not as likely to run for office, according to researchers, Richard Fox and Jennifer Lawless in "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office (2004)," the gender gap in the United States political system derives from the idea that women do not physically run for office as frequently as men do. In fact, Fox and Lawless insist that when women do run for election, gender is irrelevant in that woman are just as likely to win as men.

Why don't women run as frequently as men do?
Fox and Lawless outline the major reasons why women lack participation in elections. First, women are less likely to be supported by a political party or source to motivate them to run. Second, females do not have the same confidence as males, for they frequently feel unqualified to run, even when they have similar resumes. Third, although less significant, women (more frequently) balance other responsibilities such as family and household chores, leaving them less time to focus on a campaign.

As a woman, the facts are hard to face. Are we really not confident enough? Upon reading these statistics, I began checking the methods of study to ensure accuracy, for I assumed the indifference of men and women and politics was primarily due to stereotypes. I remember when Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin were running -- they were criticized for showing feminine characteristics. "She's only crying because she's a woman; etc." Step it up ladies ;)

Why you should use Facebook and Twitter if you want to help advertise your candidate:


Peter Fenn explains in the video above, how Internet use is responsible for a large portion of President Obama's donations from his campaign in 2008. Tony Romm, member of Politco newspaper, points out that even regular people assist in advertising their favorite candidates by re-tweeting and sharing posts. An undecided friend may be scrolling through feed, stumble upon a political post and potentially decide who to vote for based on that small interaction. Social media is a growing phenomenon that has captivated all walks of life including politics, campaigning and average citizens just looking to share their opinions.

Pornography, Censorship & Other Dirty Things [The Constitution: The People v. Larry Flynt (1996)]

Does pornography subordinate women? Or desensitize men to rape and domestic violence? What should be censored? 

Since the release of Deep Throat (1972), all throughout the "Golden Age of Porn," and even up until recently with E.L. James' 50 Shades of Grey, people debate whether porn is merely tolerable, beneficial or absolutely disgusting.

In The People v. Larry Flynt (1996), actor Woody Harrelson depicts the life of Larry Flynt from his childhood in Ohio, to the success of Hustler magazine, and later downfall as drugs and legal conflicts corrupt Flynt's seemingly glamorous lifestyle complete with mansion and orgies. Although graphic, the film touches upon significant political issues. Charles Keating, the first to announce distress from the pornographic images, insists that community standards must be met with censorship. Keating and Flynt are not the only characters who disagree! My political science class entered a heated discussion when trying to sort through the fluff and find the logic in this mess.

Now, to address the original questions posed: 

Does pornography subordinate women?
No!! As clearly established in Melinda Vadas' "A First Look at Pornography/ Civil Rights Ordinance: Could Pornography be the Subordination of Women?" and as discussed in The People v. Larry Flynt, pornography may depict women as being subordinated, but the women are not actually subordinated.

If you are sitting and shaking your head, you might be asking, where does morality come into play? Tom Minnery, author of article "Pornography: The Human Tragedy," pleas a similar case, asserting that regardless of what government regulations step in, censorship of porn prevents excessive sexual violence, domestic violence, death by asphyxiation, and even child molestation. Although psychological research has argued for/against this claim, no conclusive evidence supports either side. Not to be too cynical but ...with or without laws of censorship, and with or without pornography, criminals will commit sexual abuse and so forth.

Does pornography ACTUALLY desensitize men to rape and domestic violence?  
Maybe. All media, including pornography, but also movies, television and music expose viewers to rape, violence, and all sorts of obscenities. Perhaps, people relieve built up angst and sexual fantasies when watching described images. Arguably, by releasing this unaccepted behavior in an imaginary way, media prevents rape and violence.

What should be censored? Nothing. As stated by Thelma McCormack in "Feminism and the First Amendment", censorship "...creates mindless, conforming citizens..." As further discussed in the report, even self-censorship promotes closed-mindedness in some instances. When the individuals within a society window shop the market of ideas, each can analyze the options with perspective, and select whatever opinion he/she feels is best. For example, while cuddled up in my dorm room with a tray of Chinese food, I decided to peep through 50 Shades of Grey. I have never been too big a fan for romantic novels, or into sadomasochism, but all the women at work are raving about it. The spicy novel educated me on the functions of a sadomasochist relationship and perhaps provided an explanation for this taboo. As feminist Alison Lee states in "A (Very) Intimate Journey", pornography allows both genders to explore and embrace their sexuality.

To sum this up in a nutshell, if you don't like it, don't watch it! Generally, people need to mind their own business and protect our First Amendment rights.