Anyone else sick of the Affordable Care Act yet???.....

I suspect there are some of you who would agree with me that we are really tired of hearing about the Affordable Care Act and all the issues with it.  But lets take a look at how the Administration has evolved in its framing of all the issues. 

So Obama Care, or the Affordable Care Act, went into effect (the sign up in the exchanges) on October 1, 2013.  One small problem....no one could sign up!

The Washington Post put together a fun little clip to help explain what the problem is with the website.  Clearly the Post is more of a conservative news organization.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/26/obamacares-tech-problems-explained-in-two-minutes/

The more Obama friendly CNN was framing the story that this was bound to happen, every new website will have issues and that he administration was on top of the fix this was November 4, 2013 well over 30 days into the sign up time. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/politics/obamacare/

Now it is December 1, one day after the President's self imposed "fix" date for website annnnnd the Adminstration says is fixed.
A news story released today from the Inquistor sums it up nicely:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1048339/obamacare-website-fixes-successful-according-to-white-house-problems-persist/

We have to give it a few days to see if it truly is working.  If there are more problems it will be interesting to see how the topic is framed by the Obama Administration.

When the media has your back its all smiles....but just wait

In the months leading up to the 2010 signing of the historic Affordable Care Act the media was in a frenzy over the passage of this bill.  Anyone opposed to passing this bill (mainly republicans) were devils who wanted to kill kids with Cancer.  The media firmly showed their bias towards the President's landmark legislation with no problem.  Geoffrey Dickens of News Busters (a conservative news source that exposes liberal media bias) gives a very in-depth view of the media's attention to ACA in the months leading up to the passage of the bill. 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2012/03/21/selling-socialism-medias-campaign-obamacare

One of my personal favorite moments for the ACA prior to the passage was President Obama's speech to doctors outside of the White House where they strategically handed out white coats to all of the doctors attending the speech. 

The media and the Democrats went to great lengths to frame this legislation as the most important thing to this country since civil rights.

Now the bill has been passed and is in the implementation phase annnnnnnnd there are some serious issues.  The people are not happy, the media can't frame the issues to help the President and the President is in back pedal mode.

Gone are the days of the President giving speeches with white coats, now the President isn't in the rose garden of the white house, he is in the press briefing room with a less than thrilled expression.  Who will control this story in the coming days, the media or the politicians?

Let's Make a Deal....

Sunday November 24th Iran signed an agreement with a delegation of foreign powers, including The United States, to "curb" their nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions against the nation. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-iran-nuclear-talks-special-report-idUSBRE9AO00820131125?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

This story is still fresh, but so far the stories I have been reading are showering this deal with youthful optimism.  The Reuters article above paints a picture of hard working diplomats, working into the wee hours of the morning, they even referenced that their negotiations continued well after the time they had scheduled the banquet rooms and therefore had to hear the songs being sung by a band in an adjacent banquet room....Another article I read from CNN paints John Kerry as the knight in white armor how gathered all the nations together and was the glue that held the talks together. 

I wonder how this "deal"will be perceived in the coming months.  Will the media still be painting the story as "historic" in six months when it is set to expire?

Youth is wasted on the young...

My grandfather use to joke (not really) that youth was wasted on the young and that knowledge was wasted on the old.  His reasoning behind this is that young people are too "dumb" to know that they don't know anything and the old know they know it all but are so old they forget what they know or they die before they can effectively share the information.

Ever wonder why the older you get the larger percentage you get to vote?  Well lets look at some numbers:
*which can be found at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0399.pdf*

Lets look at Presidential Election years:

In 1996 of registered voters you have 67% 65+ age group voting, compared to 31.2% of 18-20 year olds, and even only 33.4% of  21-24 year olds.  Those two younger age groups together do not beat the elderly voting group.

Now in 2000 of registered voters you have 67.6% in the 65+ age group voting, compared to 28.4% of 18-20 year olds, and only 35% of the 21-24 year olds.

In 2004 same story, 68.9% of 65+ year olds and 41% of 18-20 year olds and 42% of 21-24 year olds.  While these numbers have improved over the years the are still no where near the numbers of the 65+.

Finally the best showing for the youngsters is in 2008, while the 65+ held strong at 68%, the 18-20 years olds were at 41% and the 21-24 year olds showed great support at 46.6%.

Now some might argue that the are more elderly people and that is why they have higher voting numbers.  I don't know who these people are but they clearly are in the uninformed catergory to think that the 65+ has the largest population.

According to recent Census data our 65+ pales in comparsion to our 18-24 age grouping.  The 18-24 age group is double that of the 65+ age group.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0007.pdf

So back to the original question, why are the older voting blocks so much bigger?  It really comes down to knowledge.  The older you are the more knowledge you gain on how the political system affects you.  Younger citizens think that they are not directly impacted by policies made by politicians and therefore feel as if they have no need to vote.  And then as they age they begin to realize that it does matter and every vote does count.  So what ends up happening is that the smallest section of our society determines the course our country goes in because they have the strongest voting percentages.

I's, Me's vs. We and Us'

The I's, the me's paint a very different picture than the Us and the We's.  Most Americans are focused on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obama Care, or rather the failings of the systems put in place to allow people to access the benefits.  The roll out has been plagued with a failed website, people being unclear on what they have to do and worst of all hundreds of thousands of people being dropped by their insurance carriers.  This goes against the Presidents earlier statements that if you like your doctor and you like your insurance you CAN KEEP IT.

So the President has all these issues and the public is not happy.  So what does a politician do when what he has done is making the voters mad?? Well glad you asked, he spreads out the blame.  When everything is wonderful and the world is full of unicorns, hearts and rainbows  you will hear I, I, and more I's - oh and don't forget the me's.  When all the rainbows have turned to storm clouds, the hearts have burst and the unicorns have run for the hills then you will hear a lot of Us, We and even they.

When it is good then they want to make sure you know it was because of them.  When it is bad they want to spread that out as much as possible so they aren't the only one to blame.

For example when the United States Seal Team 6 killed Osama  Bin Laden President Obama gave a speech from the White House and there were tons of I's and Me's in his speech. Check out the link below.  The whole set up of this speech is vastly different than the one about the Affordable Care Act issues and numbers.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0ISgosTlQ

The speech on healthcare was given in the press briefing room and the President used a lot of We's, Us, the President even through the poor building of the White House under bus, the President kept saying "the White House" this and the "White House" that, it's a building for goodness sake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-nov-14-statement-on-health-care/2013/11/14/6233e352-4d48-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

 Part of the spin of the media and the spin of the politicians is the language they use, when it's good the "I" had everything do with that success. When it is bad "we" or "they" are to blame.

When did propaganda become the new four letter word?....

Propaganda why is this such a bad thing? Is this a bad thing?Isn't this just another way for a story to be controlled? Don't we have this happen every day?

Sooooo many questions when it comes to propaganda. First of all propaganda is not bad, just like anything else it all comes back to how it is used.  Americans look at propaganda of other nations and think it is evil.  But you have to look at the intended audience, American's were not intended to like  this Iranian video from a few years ago that shows Americans as failures who are fat, our prisons are over crowded (well they really are) and our kids shoot other kids at school. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9MaZQORfI

No the intended audience are the Iranians, of course this is going to be labeled as hate propaganda.  But when you think about the intent and what it is trying to do, while yes it is propaganda, it necessarily isn't evil.

For example how could Donald Duck ever seem evil, but yes he was part of some entertaining American Propaganda from the 1940's about paying your income tax....(yes I know income tax is evil...but the intent was not)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ69X1qt4sQ#t=49

Propaganda is not a four letter word, but just another tool in controlling the story. 

Spies Like Us...

Edward Snowden strikes again! So now the NSA spies on our allies as well as our enemies (although maybe that wasn't a surprise).  The New York Times ran a story today (Oct. 27, 2013) about the latest round of NSA mishaps showing that the NSA has been monitoring the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel since 2002...whoops! Especially when just months before President Obama assured her that she was not being monitored....AWKWARD.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/world/europe/data-suggests-push-to-spy-on-merkel-dates-to-02.html?hp&_r=0

BBC World News also ran a story dealing with more fall out from Snowden's release of NSA files about Spain and the U.S spying on their citizens - needless to say they aren't happy either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24708410#TWEET937545

As I do a quick glance at the major American news sites: CNN, NBC, Fox News, and ABC I am not seeing a lot, or in some cases any reports at all on this story.  Mainly I find stories about Obamacare Website problems, or a man being struck by lightening, or questioning if Hilary Clinton doesn't run for President in 2016 who will.

There is no doubt that this blunder by the American Government is monumental and damaging to our relationships around the world, but it seems as if the American Media is downplaying the importance of the story, while the international media is all over it.  This clearly is a joint effort of the media and the politicians working to steer the American public away from this story.  The politicians face embarrassment by this and the Government is even more so damaged by this internationally, but it appears if domestically it is just blip on the radar....

This is a case where I think the media has it wrong and shouldn't protect the politicians and they need to bring a huge spotlight and shine it bright for all to see. 

What do Ratings have to do with it.....

Ratings are everything to News organizations.  They need good ratings to sell more advertisement space, to make more money, to then in-turn pay for their operation costs. So what happens when one news organization questions the ratings of another news organization? You get the comical back and forth between MSNBC and Fox News. 

A few weeks ago Fox News debuted news reporter Megyn Kelly's new show "The Kelly File" in their 9pm time slot, going head to head with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show.  Well it would appear that Megyn Kelly's show was a success, she had great numbers the first night (Monday) and by the next night (Tuesday) she had double her viewership - spanking the Rachel Maddow Show. 

Now enter MSNBC president Phil Griffin, he called for an investigation into Megyn Kelly's numbers, not believing them to be true.  So Nieslens did an investigation and concluded that the numbers were correct. The Kelly File had doubled its viewership in one day.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/16/megyn-kellys-ratings-rise-legit-nielsen/

Now while Fox News plays this "investigation" up to "Fox Paranoia" - which is the main stream or liberal media not understanding how Fox News can have the highest ratings of News organizations on television.  I person see this as a business man who is mad that his product - the Rachel Maddow Show - is not performing to bigger audience so he can increase his advertisement sales.  As much as some would like to paint this as liberal against conservative, I think it comes down to dollar vs. dollar.

If CSPAN was Prime Time....

I saw a very interesting exchange between Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky (Republican) and Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois (Democrat).  They were discussing the government shutdown and specifically the reopening the National Parks on Wednesday October 9, 2013.

Here is the link to the youtube video of the exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmqdiDrDIrU&feature=youtu.be

What I found interesting about this is that each side painted a very different picture of the same situation.  Just like media does.  Depending on what side you favor you will take the same facts and use them in a way the makes your side look like the better. (As a side note I also found it comical that Senator Durbin at every opportunity wanted to point out that Senator Paul is a junior Senator and that he isn't - as if this made his argument invalid) 

This exchange, I think, was a great illustration of what the problem is in Washington today.  It also allowed first hand accounts from the policy makers to go directly to the people....oh wait no one really watches C-SPAN. 

Now I understand that C-SPAN can be incredibly dull,and we all can't just watch C-SPAN, but isn't that would our media is for? Shouldn't they be filtering this type of info to us? 

The answer is YES! But did they? Not that I can see, I can't find any major news organization that showed this exchange.  But then again I could be the only person in America that enjoyed seeing this and wishes there was more coverage of it.  Because if that is the case I don't think I make up enough of a viewership for the media to care about....

I thought we were in a crisis- Government Shutdown? Anyone? Anyone?

When I did my daily round of news websites there was not a single constant top story among them:

Fox New has a story about Obama Care and it's technology glitches
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-may-face-months-glitches-experts-warn/

CNN has a story about the questioning whether the GOP is dropping the Obama Care debate in the current shutdown
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/09/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

ABC News has a story about the newly nominated Chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/5-surprising-things-about-janet-yellen/

And the Drudge Report (they pull from many news sources for their content) is talking about he IRS scandal with the targeting members of the Tea Party
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/white-house-irs-exchanged-confidential-taxpayer-info/

Now while I do look at about four other sources I didn't want to further bore you with more stories. So lets focus on these four.

Media and Politics, I contend tat they are symbiotic in nature.  They need each other to function probably and neither one is completely in control of the other.  They work together for there own advancement.  So sometimes it will be the media that controls the story, or it will be the politician.

So what happens when your government is in day 9 of a government shutdown and there has been no resolution?  That's right your media moves on because the American public's attention span is that of a gnat. Out of these fours news sources only 1 has a top story that is dealing with the Shutdown in any manner.  Yes there are other stories farther down the page or a link taking you to something about he shutdown, but most Americans are surfers - they don't really go to far to get their news.  What is front and center is what they think matters the most.  What we have here is media and political symbiotic burn out. 

And this is what you end up with; news sources differing on what the top news should be.  We all know that it should be about the shutdown, but were into the ninth day so in order for the media to keep their viewership up they need to start branching out. So if your were an uninformed American who only really looked at one maybe two news sources, you might think that this government shutdown isn't that big deal.  Because if it was then of course your news station would have it front and center...wouldn't they?

No, no they wouldn't. 

Government Shutdown! Oh NO! Oh wait not really....

It almost seems like deja vu, didn't  we just do this last October, and the October before that? Oh wait we did.  It seems that our Congress has no time during the year to actually work on the Government's budget until the day it is due, October 1st. Actually what is happening in our Congress is a whole lot of wasting time and then waiting to the last minute to blame each other for not getting their jobs done. 

Now depending on who you get your news from you may have a very different idea of what is actually happening with our Senate and House over the budget.   Here is the jist.  Our fiscal year ends/starts October 1st every year. The Senate and House have to pass a budget each year in order to fund the government for that year.  This year, like the last two, each party - republican and democrats have delayed, blocked or simply not done their job of getting a budget done.  If a budget is not passed by Monday October 1st at midnight there will be a partial shutdown of non-essential agencies until a budget is passed.  So if you read WSB's Washington Reporter, Jamie Dupree's blog or editorials you will have gotten as much of a non-biased approach to the budget crisis

Jamie Dupree's unbiased middle of the road reporting-
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/sep/29/budget-mess-congress/

 If by change you read Reuters' you are more likely to blame Republicans for this entire mess.  While they do point out that the agencies that will be shut down are non-essential, they also note that they have to close their doors for the first time in 17 years and refer to this as the Republican government shutdown.

Reuters' left leaning bias reporting-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE98N11220130930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

And for some more media perspective on the budget issue we look at the more right leaning Washington Post.  While it gives the facts in a decent manner, much as Jamie Dupree's, it paints the democrats as stalling and causing the trouble.  It also points out that somehow President Obama leaving on a week long trip to Asia, is a problem.  While yes he needs to sign it, just like he did before he can use technology to do that.

Washington Post's more right leaning reporting-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-to-propose-one-year-delay-in-obamacare/2013/09/28/1e884de6-2859-11e3-9256-41f018d21b49_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

So who is controlling the story, the politicians or the media?  I would have to say this goes for a win in the media's column.  Washington no matter how they want to try and spin this, are not controlling this story.  The media, no matter how bias, does not like that they aren't doing their jobs.  So we will see how they get this done and when.....

Grandstanding not equal in the eyes of the Main Stream Media

Last week we saw Republican Texas Senator, Ted Cruz give a filibuster style speech on the floor of the U.S Senate in opposition of Obama Care.  He spoke for 21 hours and 19 minutes.  Very impressive for anyone to undertake.  And why did I call this a 'filibuster style speech'? Because it was not a true filibuster.  Senator Cruz was talking during an allotted amount of time given to anyone in the Senate, nor was he holding up a Senate vote. What Senator Cruz was doing was bring as much media attention to the issue of Obama Care.  Without a doubt he did just that. But has this attention be equal among media sources?  Not by a long shot.  News organizations such as Politico and CNN were quite to point out the fact that while this was long speech it was not holding up any real business in the Senate. While news organizations such as Fox News and Red State focused more of their coverage on more of the substance of what Cruz was talking about, defunding Obama Care. 

Now does this point out Media bias, not really.  What happens when we compare this quasi-filibuster from a Texas Republican to another filibuster, this time from a Texas democrat.  Enter Texas state Senator Wendy Davis.  Senator Davis reached headlines when she held a true filibuster to hold up the vote on Texas' most strict ban on abortions.  She was successful in delaying the vote so long that the the law could not be passed and signed into law by its deadline of midnight, but Texas Governor Rick Perry did call a special session of the State's legislature to get it to eventually pass. She spoke for 11 hours and 39 minutes.  The glaring difference in the media's reactions to each of these speeches is how much Wendy Davis was praised and embraced compared to Ted Cruz.

News organizations like the Huffington Post, largely left leaning, was praising her stand on abortion and calling her a hero. Also calling for her to be the next Governor of Texas; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-stanford/wendy-davis-governor_b_3670241.html
While it came to Senator Ted Cruz's speech we wasn't held was as much praise or esteem from the Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/ted-cruz-obamacare-speech_n_3983954.html

Not all speeches, filibuster, or grandstanding are created equal.  Each is for a different cause, some work, some don't and some are just for the attention. And not in a bad way, they all want the media to take notice of what they are doing so they can get their message out the people.  So when it comes to both Cruz and Davis they did what they set out to do, get attention to their cause.  A side effect to this attention is that sometimes your message is changed, altered or eliminated by the ones reporting. 

In the beginning...

And so begins a journey into the vast, complicated, symbiotic world of media and politics.  This blog will examine, highlight and ponder who really has control, the media or the political parties?  I see them as symbiotic in nature- one can not live without the other, but who is the more dominate of the two?Is one more in control than the other? Or do they switch off control depending on the need of the media or the need of the party?  All burning questions that I look forward to exploring.