Pressured by the Press

This post was inspired by the footage of the NATO protesters I saw on the news yesterday as well as our class discussion today. Someone who saw the story on ABC mentioned how rather than focusing on why protesters were there, the news reporters highlighted the "struggle," as my peer put it, between the protesters and the police officers who were there for crowd control. I watched this story on NBC and noticed the same thing.

For the half hour (at the least) that I was watching, the reporters failed to mention what the people were protesting. There was however, a lot of talk about how the state police were putting on their gas masks, as a sort of threat to protesters. Reporters repeated this very often, only dramatizing the situation. They seemed to want the audience to continue anticipating the use of tear gas, so they would keep watching-a strategy not unlike the kind drama screenwriters use.

There was also plenty of reporting that put the police officers in a very positive light. I heard multiple times how the officers were "actually" handing out water bottles to the protesters because of the high temperatures. Because of the use of "actually" what I really heard was: "Despite the fact that the police officers appear to be stomping on the protesters' freedom of speech, they actually are encouraging it! Why else would they be giving them water?"

Not only were are the police made out to be the good guys in these reports, but they protesters are made to look foolish. This news clip is from a report of some of the protesters today, who were now front of Boeing Headquarters. The reporter says that the protesters were "singing songs" and that "silly string," "kazoos," and "glitter" "all over the place." These words portray the protesters as childish. I also think it is not a coincidence that phrases such as "all over the place" have become used to describe both the NATO and Occupy protesters, as they appear so often of the lips of new reporters.

Why isn't the media more objective when covering protest stories?

A Timeless Theme?

One of the most obvious themes that appears in Orson Welle's Citizen Kane, and Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is that money can't buy happiness. By now some may consider this to be a cliche, but that was not necessarily the case the time these works were released.

The Great Gatsby was published in 1925, during the roaring twenties. World War I was over and the economy was flourishing. America experienced major industrial growth and prosperity was widespread- leading to a new lifestyles of indulgence and partying. This is clearly portrayed in the novel, as Nick Carraway attends many parties among the wealthy communities whether Tom's apartment in NYC or at Gatsby's mansion. It is no secret though,  that despite their luxurious lifestyle, the upper class are not happy- as Tom has an affair and Daisy has her share of emotional episodes. Not to mention Gatsby, who is made out to be a fool who spent his life trying to use wealth as a means to love, resulting only with him dying unsatisfied and alone.

Charles Kane faces a similar fate. Although one of the richest men in the world, he clearly longs for the happiness he possessed when he was a child, as his last words were "rosebud"- the name of his sled he had as a boy. Perhaps this is Kane's version of Gatsby's green light. Citizen Kane was released in 1941 which just like the twenties, was a time when money was one everybody's minds- only in a different way. It was the very end of the Great Depression, and with many struggling to make ends meet, money probably did sound like a solution to Americans' happiness. Maybe Orson Welle's felt obliged to challenge this mindset, leading to the creation of Citizen Kane.

Welle's and Fitzgerald's works seem to be reminders or even warnings that money can't buy happiness to Americans who clearly had an obsession with money during these decades. How relevant are these warnings today? Would they have been just as applicable in any other decade of American history?

An Unclassy Comment

While looking into the debates over class separation in America, I came a across an interesting quote from former Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. In responding to Governor Mitt Romney's use of the term "Middle Class." Santorum explains how he avoids using this term because "There are no classes in America. We're a country that don't allow for titles."

Really? One read of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald strongly convinces me otherwise. Fitzgerald  shows 3 distinct, separate classes in just a small area of Long Island: The East Eggers with "white palaces" that "glittered", the West Eggers with "less fashionable" housing (5) and those who come from the "valley of of ashes" where "ashes take the form of houses" (23). I think the closest America would ever come to having "no classes" is if it turned to communism. Even then, I doubt a truly classless society would exist. 

I also think America is country that not only"allow[s] for titles," but a country that allows for titles to have great influence. Just today in class I saw this while reading about the history of Winnetka's "Big Ditch" railroad system. This supposedly safer system was not implemented until after the wife of the "director of the Community House" died in a train-related accident, despite the many previous fatalities. Winnetka also  received government funding for this project from the Public Works Administration (PWA) even though it was during the Great Depression. How did the village manage to do that? Perhaps this had something to do with the title former Winnetka resident, Harold Ickes, held: "Secretary of the Interior" and "Administrator" of the PWA.

Is Santorum really blind to this clear class separation of America, or was he just getting a little to optimistic in saying that America has no classes? How is it possible for America to achieve a classless society? Is it?

Afghanistanization

*title credit to Mr. Bolos
President Obama just delivered a live address to Americans explaining some changes occurring regarding the Afghanistan war. It is worth noting that today marks the one year anniversary of the launching of mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Obama spoke from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, traveling there in order to sign a "Strategic Partnership Agreement" with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
                                                                                                              Watch full address here                          

This agreement established that America will no longer have permanent military bases in Afghanistan, but is going to still support Afghan troops. The goal is to withdrawal all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by 2014. In the meantime, America is going to work on "delivering justice to al-Qaeda," with the "light of a new day on the end of the horizon."

This plan reminded me a lot of Nixon's "Vietnamization": the process that replaced American troops with Southern Vietnamese  troops, during the Vietnam War in order to bring  soldiers home (as I learned from my junior theme). Hopefully this plan is the only similarities we will find between Nixon and Obama's presidency, but it does sound promising. Not too passive, not to aggressive, but just right: The Goldilock's plan.


However Vietnamization was not necessarily successful. It did bring home the U.S. troops but this lead to  South Vietnam succumbing to North Vietnam, meaning we did not win the war. How does this precedent affect your confidence in Obama's plan? Why should the outcome of this plan be any different today?