Just some political media cartoons.

This cartoon shows the media spoonfeeding its viewers. Media usually reports what we want to hear. We are a society that is based off fast and efficient news sources. That's why many news sources turn out to be biased because they can get their views out there for people willing to listen.

This cartoon shows a news van on its way to do a report on a story. The sign above says, "misinformation highway: next right." It basically portrays that the media often misinterprets many stories. Another reason to read multiple news sources.

Another cartoon showing how both sides of the political parties will twist the other's words to make them look like the bad guy. Media is the same way. That is how many news sources become biased. Fox is known as a right-wing news source, mainly for Republican views. MSNBC is know as a left-wing news source, mainly for Democratic views. 

What are your interpretations on each of the cartoons? 

Arms Trade Treaty? What?

My stepfather is a proud member of the NRA. He does not take one side of the fence over the other, meaning he is not full-blown Republican, nor Democrat. You might as well call him a Republican when it comes to his guns and his gun rights, however. He was telling me about the Arms Trade Treaty a couple weeks back and I was surprised I had not heard much about it. When I say I had not heard much about it, I mean I had not heard of it at all. So, I had to do a little researching of course. He made it seem like it was an attack on our 2nd amendment rights. That is probably what most Americans view it as.

This article on Fox News has a quick, 5-minute video that gives an overview. I encourage you to watch it if you have time. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/25/un-arms-treaty-will-be-menace-to-us-for-years-to-come/

Basically, what I have gathered from the information is, the treaty is an agreement to keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands internationally. Most view this as relinquishing individual rights to bear arms. I, myself, do not own a gun. I am rightfully afraid of them, but I do not believe we should have to question if we will have that right in the foreseeable future. 

Senator John Kerry stirred up a big pot of controversy when he signed the U.N. Treaty on America's behalf. Luckily, a few weeks later, this article was published. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/18/good-news-from-washington-un-arms-trade-treaty-doa-in-us-senate/

Senator Jerry Moran and Senator Joe Manchin wrote a letter signed by 48 of their colleagues that duly notes the Senate would not be ratifying such a decision in the foreseeable future. What a relief! Tucker, the Fox News correspondent, did mention that the NRA is the Republican organization that has the 2nd amendment tightly secured and did not see this budging anytime soon.

The question is: Is there a growing possibility the 2nd amendment will be taken away? What is society's opinion on the matter? What is the media leaving out?

Gov't Shutdown: 1995 vs. 2013

(Above is a picture from the 1995 Gov't shutdown)

There are three main differences between the 1995 Government shutdown and the 2013 Government shutdown. This article from CNN, found below, explains why.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/different-government-shutdowns/

Here's a quick summary:

Reason One:

1995: President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich were open to compromise

2013: President Obama and Speaker Boehner lack contact with one another

Reason Two: 

1995: Republicans and Democrats were more likely to come to some sort of an agreement eventually

2013: Partisanship is deeper, fewer moderates left on Capitol Hill which means more disagreement

Reason Three:

1995: The economy was booming during the shutdown. Unemployment was at an all-time low of 5.6%

2013: Current economy is sluggishly recovering and it is still fragile. Unemployment just recently shrunk to 7.3% and labor participation is at its lowest since August 1978.

(Below is a picture from the 2013 Gov't Shutdown)

New health-law implementation will vary by state. Did you know that?

Because I didn't!

The Wall Street Journal just recently posted a new article here.

"Health-Law Implementation to Vary by State"
As 'Obamacare' Kicks In, Americans' Experiences Are Set to Diverge Depending on Where They Live

To really put things into perspective, Schatz and Radnofsky, used the state of Georgia as an example:

In Atlanta, before Georgia's new federally run health exchange kicks off, the cheapest plan available now has a monthly base rate of $43 for a healthy 30-year-old male nonsmoker, reflecting the state's light regulation. The median plan starts at $108 a month, according to a federal database of plans. Next year, that same customer will likely have to pay at least $188 a month, although some lower-income people could get subsidies toward premium costs.

Under the new system, insurers must accept all comers and can't charge sick people more. Currently, insurers in some states are allowed to offer healthy people skimpy plans with low rates, but those will go away when new federal requirements kick in this fall.

"I was always skeptical of Obamacare," Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, a Republican, said in a statement. "But I never imagined that it would lead to rates being doubled or tripled. Increases of this magnitude will make coverage less affordable and increase the number of uninsured in Georgia." Nationwide, people who forgo coverage next year face a fine of at least $95.

The article also goes on to state that states will either run their on exchanges or let the federal government handle that task, whether they were for or againish Mr. Obama and his new healthcare reform. Does the fact that implementations will vary state by state change any concepts at all? Could this be more of a good thing or a bad thing? No matter what, what affects each state differently will come together and affect the country as a whole. 

They'd say something...right?

"It's A Tidy System"

Cartoon By: Barry Deutsch

Found HERE.

I really just wanted to post this political cartoon because it's very relevant to what many of the news outlets have been reporting recently. Obamacare is on the verge of going into effect and we still have many, many Americans who disagree with it, both Republicans and Democrats. Many people still don't even know the basics of Obamacare. We have these major news networks either bashing it or standing behind it, yet we have such an uninformed society. I believe this cartoon gives a little insight to the whole situation. I particularly like the small box at the end of the cartoon. Pay attention to what it says. What do you guys think about this image, what it has to say, and how it all ties into our current situation?

Does unbiased news even exist?

My POLS class actually touched on this in one of our recent discussions. It's a very controversial matter that is ongoing. As a matter of fact, I don't think it will ever cease to exist. The topic I'm talking about is actually how biased a majority of our news sources have become. 

Some websites were given to me that sparked my interests. One is left-winged and the other was right-winged. For everyone who is unfamiliar with these terms, I will explain. Left-sided views are often considered liberal. Liberal views are sometimes associated with the Democratic side but not always. Right-sided views are, on the other hand, perceived as conservative. What is associated with conservative? I mean, there is only one other side (right?) and that's Republican. Again, conservative doesn't necessarily mean that one person is full-blown Republican.

Anyways, the liberal site is Media Matters and the conservative site is Newsbusters. I encourage anyone who is interested at comparing both sides to look at the plethora of articles on this website. It's always good to keep an open mind regardless if your one side, the other, or neither. I'm going to summarize and give an example of each side’s bias with their own articles. 

Media Matters has an article, "Four Fox Lies About Seniors' Obamacare Coverage". First of all, I would like to point out that FOX is considered a right-winged network. With that being said, and as you can tell by the title, the liberal website is about to call out the conservative network, FOX. They are attacking the right-sided view of Obamacare because they are biased and don't agree with the conservative view. On the other hand, they point out lies that FOX falsely claims in this video. From the FOX news perspective, they are just mentioning certain things that cater to their side, and it makes the President look bad. FOX doesn't include the whole story, just particular facts that will form negative opinions on Obamacare. The video is targeted primarily towards conservative, senior citizens. 

On Newsbusters, the right-winged news site is an article very similar to the one above just switched roles. "NBC set to Launch Week of Programming to 'Help' ObamaCare 'Succeed'". Newsbusters attacks MSNBC and accuses them of "regularly touting the liberal line on every issue. MSNBC makes the comment that Obamacare will, "help Americans get the most out of the Affordable Health Care Act." The article goes on to mention how the network fails to mention a wide variety of polls that prove most of society does not want this healthcare to go into effect, both Republicans and Democrats. Also, Newbusters happily points out the fact that Democrats controlled both House and Senate when Obamacare was officially passed.  

We receive quite an amount of news every single day, but what percentage of that news is the whole truth? Obviously not much. Our major news sources are all considered biased. Fox is conservative, CBS is liberal, CNN bounces back and forth, and so on. How do we know what to believe? If we don't see both sides, we'll be blinded by false truths. In order to understand the current issues, it is critical we look at both sides and all the in-betweens. There is something to be left out, guaranteed, intentional or not. 

My first post: introduction to my blog!

So, for my first post, I just want to give a little description of what's to come and what you will see in my blog. This is just a summary to give everyone a general idea. Hopefully, there will be some compelling articles and intriguing topics. I want to do something along the lines of finding the truth within the media's messages to us. Basically, I will touch on how mass media and politics are intertwined and how they are conveyed to us, creating a biased society. The media, especially when it comes to politics, tends to compact news into a summary. With that being said, the whole story is not always touched on. They leave out some facts or comments here and there. When they relay these stories to us, we can take that information many different ways and misconstrue it all. The media is criticized for misconstruing the story and only telling the parts that will grab our attention and reel us in, thus creating a biased society. Is it wholly the media's fault, our own faults, or just a little bit of both? For my blog, I want to take controversial articles and break them down to try and find real truth. It is going to be interesting.

- Whitney
IT'S JUST REAL TALK