Deep throat was the best…

Glad I caught your attention with this reference to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandal!


Last week, we spoke in class about the prevalence of scandals that plagued or are currently plaguing the political scene and its widespread coverage in the media. 

Many of these scandals involve sexual misconduct and other related personal matters that might not directly, if at all, impact the leadership positions and the work carried out by elected officials under scrutiny. Indeed, last class, I was left wondering about such media coverage, which led me to cry out: "who cares?!" Who cares what people do in their private lives?!!

Private life is private by definition, and what elected officials do in a bedroom should be of no concern to us as voters or as people. As long as their private life doesn't negatively impact their work ethics or performance on the job, I truly believe that it is none of my business to know that an elected official cheated on his or her spouse with an attractive young intern.

At that point, Professor Adler rightly pointed out that I am French, which could explain my position on the matter. Aside from the gap dividing the European and American cultures, our political experiences are not the same. From a cultural standpoint I could refer you to the movie "Eurotrip" which quite accurately depicts a few differences between what some describe as "the American puritan culture" and the "open" European society.

That being said, Professor Adler explained that the Watergate scandal, among other things, had a profound and lasting impact on the American political scene and altered the public opinion with regards to the expectations and values an elected official must embody. However, despite the fact that I understand this difference in political experience and find some value in this explanation, I think that it cannot completely account for that thirst among the American public for fresh gossip.

For a long time, I have observed a shift in media coverage and subjects of discussion among various social groups, ranging from college students on various campuses to adult professionals sharing news over dinner. Gossip is now prevalent in our discussions and occupies a primordial place during our social interactions, which leads me to think that our media coverage is not a cause but rather a result of what society demands.

From TV reality to Facebook, we enjoy observing others interact in social circles outside our own. Therefore, the fact that many people enjoy "stalking" our most celebrated political rock stars would not be a consequence of past disturbing events, but instead would culminate from a modern societal problem where people are more concerned about the life of strangers than about their own.

For that reason, I believe that our current media coverage is not to blame. Newspapers are trying to sell and compete against various online blogs, often depicting strong and one-sided point of views, while TV newscasters are trying to survive amidst a sea of ridicule and counter-productive shows. The day on which the people will change their priorities and demand NEWS, the media outlets will be forced to comply and supply the demand.

Mere coincidence?

Are the outbreaks of violence across the Middle East linked to each other?  Indeed, one may be left pondering, just as I am, as to why all these outbursts of violence are declaring themselves now. Why now? What's special about 2011? And all these protests seem to have little in common (aside from their respective oppressors). When revolutions erupted in European countries to overthrow monarchs, it didn't happen simultaneously all across Europe! I feel comfortable in saying that no one, after watching the French, wanted to experience what revolution felt like. But when political analysts or anchors like Glenn Beck point to this phenomenon, they are ridiculed and put on the spot as believing in conspiracies or other theories deemed crazy.  First of all, is it crazy to speak about conspiracies?  It seems that the word itself has a negative connotation, one that is avoided in the media.  It would actually be scary to imagine that all this mayhem is caused by a particular group for a specific purpose.  It would mean that some non-governmental groups are more powerful than some governments. But the truth and the matter is that we do not even need to enter this speculative realm to realize that it cannot be a mere coincidence.  Many have dealt with this issue by saying that these protests are contagious.  For these people it seems that in 2011, the oppressed people suddenly took matter into their own hands and found the power to stand up against oppressors and dictators.  But the question remains: why now?  Furthermore, it is not because Tunisia found the strength to overthrow Ben Ali that suddenly Libya would have the same power against Kaddafi.  Even if we accept the idea that unrest engenders more unrest, even across borders, there are so many factors that enter the equation in order to make the protests possible that it seems unlikely everyone suddenly had the same means to achieve their goals.  People who protest cannot work, so they must get money from somewhere.  Weapons aren’t free either.  And to destabilize a government tightly protected by arm forces, you generally need more than people shouting with signs in the street: you need insiders at all level of the bureaucracy and government, and that is not something that can happen overnight. My point is that I do not think these protests are random or unrelated.  Why aren’t there more discussions about this on the news?

A new kind of Watchdog Journalism?

We discussed in class the fact that watchdog journalism is declining… or is it maybe the end of Watchdog Journalism as we know it?

Indeed, polarization is gaining in strength: there are news outlets that promote a liberal point of view on one hand and some that promote a conservative point of view on the other.  Even though such polarization may have a negative effect on the American political life and may even hinder public debates – by promoting extreme opinions and by shutting out any idea that doesn’t belong to one’s political ideology – it may nonetheless generate a new kind of scrutiny involving one party consistently checking on the other.  This new kind of watchdog journalism has been seen most recently with the “battle” between some reporters on Fox News – such as Sean Hannity – and the Obama administration.  This would probably emerge as well on CNN and MSNBC if a Republican candidate were to win the upcoming presidential elections.  Even though some of the ideas promoted will seem far-fetched to some, investigative journalism will take place, and the public will have access to a media that critically observes the government on a regular basis.

The news.. a word of mouth

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/15/iran.protests/index.html?hpt=T1#
I was reading this article today on cnn.com where I recognized the role of YouTube in importing chaos across borders.  In the article, it was mentioned that videos “showed throngs of demonstrators marching, burning posters of Ayatollah Ali [Khomeini] and in one instance beating a man who appeared to try to remove a poster from the hands of protesters.”  These kinds of videos can be exchanged from phone to phone without the use of the internet, by Bluetooth for instance.  So people within Iran know what is happening, and the videos can escape Iran to inform the world.  Other videos “showed police in riot gear pursuing dozens of people running away from the baton-wielding officers,” and “similar protests going on in other cities in Iran such as Shiraz and Isfahan.”

But the interesting part is that the protests in Iran probably started (in my mind there is no question) because of the riots in Tunisia, successfully overthrowing Ben-Ali, which triggered the protests in Egypt to get rid of Mubarak.  Now that protests erupted in Iran, regardless of the actual outcome or scope of these protests, I am left wondering which country is next…