#Dave Weigel | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months

Text

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

A group of students assembled on the University of Texas at Austin campus to call for an end to the war in Gaza. They did not engage in violence. They did not disrupt classes or occupy administrative buildings. They set up tents on a lawn. They were met with a militarized response, ordered by Governor Abbott, and supported by University administrators. Students and journalists were arrested. Greg Abbott is one of many on the right that has bemoaned the death of free speech on campus. He signed a law to protect such speech in 2019. And then he calls for peaceful protestors to be arrested. So how can Abbott justify such a reversal to his call for free speech? The protestors are anti-semitic, he says. Really? How does Abbott and the police wading through the crowd know the students are anti-semitic? Because, as Dave Weigel points out, Abbott has broadened the definition of anti-semitism to incorporate support for a Palestinian state. Any protest for this cause is, therefore, anti-semitic, and therefore worth contravening his commitment to free speech, which, lets face it, was never meant to be especially binding.1

The absurdities that follow are almost funny. The University of Austin, the pretend university launched by IDW types like Bari Weiss, is preparing its “Forbidden Courses” for the summer. It stands silently by as the actual University of Texas at Austin is censored, safe in the knowledge that they are regime-approved. You don’t have to be blind to the real cases of anti-semitism in America to be troubled by accusations of anti-semitism to shut down the most visible protests to a military response that has become increasingly unpopular.

[...] There are the protests, and what the people off campus want to turn the protests into: sites of disorder and violence, a basis by which to discredit and control campuses, a reason to fear leftists radicals, and a campaign issue in the presidential election. For them, the George Floyd protests of 2020 were events of failure, of an insufficient will to crack down on dissent. (Though police did indeed crack down). They want the police to intervene aggressively, and with a sense of righteousness that comes from claiming to be on the right side of history. It does not matter if students are not engaged in meaningful violence or property damage. It does not matter if the worst forms of anti-semitism are occurring off campus, by non-students.

[...] These critiques serve two purposes. First, they erase the subject of the protest. The fundamental question of whether the protestors have a point is elided. Next time you read an opinion piece about protests on campus, ask yourself, did the author engage in the basic question of whether the war should continue, and whether the US government should continue to provide arms for it. It says something truly profound about the blinkered view of the American pundit class that they only way they can understand a real war is through their own worn culture war framings. They squint just enough to be outraged by the fact that students are protesting but refuse to engage in a discussion of what the students are protesting about.

Second, they serve to delegitimize the university itself. I’ve written about the tactics of delegitimzaiton, deconstruction and control before in the context of the administrative state, but it applies just as well to universities. As the work of political scientist Dan Carpenter points out, public organizations win autonomy based on building positive reputations; they lose that autonomy when they become viewed as incompetent or immoral. Creating reputational damage is a necessary precondition to justify removing autonomy from institutions. The narrative of a woke or disorderly campus justifies removing faculty or student input on who leads the institution, of legislators or donors establishing the contents of the curriculum. Those pushing that narrative will use any campus event to further it. Far too many people who should know better have gone along with it. This is one of the ways that what is happening on campuses now links to the campus speech wars, the censorship of speech related to race and gender, and removal of DEI offices, and the erosion of faculty and student governance. Universities, as a community, are permitted less and less to manage themselves based on their values. They will not be trusted to find the right balance. Ask yourself, is society better off with Elise Stefanik’s vision of higher education?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and the people who are habitually up in arms about campus free speech and antisemitism are themselves eroding campus free speech and enabling antisemitism by their actions supporting the removal of pro-Palestinian protesters from college campuses.

#Israel/Hamas War Protests #Israel/Hamas War #Ceasefire NOW Protests #Texas #University of Texas #Israel Apartheid #Greg Abbott #Antisemitism #Campus Protests #Austin Texas

5 notes · View notes

azspot · 9 months

Link

#biden

8 notes · View notes

noodleincident · 1 year

Text

7 notes · View notes

whee38 · 3 months

Text

Breaking Down The Super Tuesday Results | Dave Weigel | TMR

youtube

#Youtube

0 notes

charonte-simi · 1 year

Text

#alleged AOC burner account #The thing is somehow even more stupid than I realized.#also the Right's desperate grasping at calling any progressive protest/demonstration a ''jan 6th style insurrection'' is so pathetic #i dont expect these charges will amount to anything That notable but it still feels like a small win #simi's pods #fever dreams

0 notes

assignmentprep · 1 year

Text

This information helps citizens to stay in touch with government actions.

The media plays a crucial role in the political process whereby it informs citizens concerning government actions and aids individuals to exercise control over different policies. To this end, Bianco and Canon opine that since the beginning of the United States, mass media has played the role of reporting political events and as a watchdog whereby it keeps track of what politicians are doing and provides insight concerning their policy successes and failures (247). This information helps citizens to stay in touch with government actions.

The media also participates in the political process by shaping policies on different issues. According to Hird, the media is always an active participant in the policy process by deciding the issues to highlight, choosing frames for those issues, and influencing the debate’s scope (275). Moreover, the media provides political leaders a platform and ability to affect the parameters of the decision-making process since an important role of the media is its function as an instrument for conflict expansion.

Media bias

While the media plays a crucial role in the political process, there are widespread concerns over liberal biases. Hassell et al. report that a significant number of US citizens believe that there is widespread and pernicious liberal media bias (1). A 2017 Gallup poll indicated that 64% of US citizens perceive the media inclines towards the Democratic Party and 22% believe the media favors the Republican Party (Hassell et al. 1). To this end, Bianco and Canon report that numerous journalists and commentators admit that they incline towards a partisan perspective on different issues (261). Similarly, talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity describe themselves as strong conservatives (Bianco and Canon 261). Moreover, Dave Weigel’s, a Washington Post reporter, Twitter post showing numerous empty seats at a Trump rally was perceived as biased. It was only after Trump complained about the bias that the reporter apologized (Bianco and Canon 260). However, despite these few cases, there is no systemic bias in the media.

Types of media

The growth of technology has increased media sources and some of the most prevalent types of media include print media (magazines, newspapers, and books), broadcast media (television and radio), internet/web media (websites, videos, blog posts), and social media. Among these types of media, social media, which entails social networking sites, such as Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and Google has emerged as the most influential media tool in the modern era due to its ability to reach a wide population (Bajwa 120). Majorities of individuals with an android phone have a Facebook account and social sites are connecting people globally.

Talk radio balances out media bias

Talk radio has become increasingly widespread and its structure of engaging pundits and commentators from different political sides helps in balancing out media bias. Conservative republicans consider talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as trustworthy sources (Bianco and Canon 252). Talk shows also entail the involvement of the audience thus avoiding one-way communication, which often facilitates media bias. Continual interaction and feedback possibly lead to a great news experience for users compared to the conventional one-way news communication (Qureshi et al. 225). Therefore, talk radio has the potential to reduce media bias.

Framework the media uses to influence public opinion

Beyond being biased, the media can influence public opinion through filtering, framing, priming, and slanting. Under filtering, journalists decide which stories to report and influence public opinion. For instance, the US media’s coverage of gun-associated stories heightened immediately after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (Bianco and Canon 262). This reporting trend influenced public opinion and attention toward gun-related violence. On the other hand, framing describes how journalists present stories with the goal of changing the ways individuals react to and interpret information. For example, the media’s reporting of violent crime in the US exemplifies the framing effect. Major publications focused on reporting heightened incidences of violent crime in cities such as Baltimore, St. Louis, and Chicago, indicating a nationwide calamity. However, the nationwide representation was not factual because a majority of other cities experienced a decline in homicide rates (Bianco and Canon 263). Therefore, the media can use reporting tactics to influence public opinion’s direction.

Works Cited

Bajwa, Sewa Singh. Social Media: Opportunities & challenges. K.K. Publications, 2022.

Bianco, William T and David T Canon. American Politics Today. 7th edition. 2021.

Hassell, Hans, J. G. et al. “There is no Liberal Media Bias in Which News Stories Political Journalists Choose to Cover.” Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 14, 2020, pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay9344

Hird, John A. Policy Analysis in the United States. Policy Press, 2018.

Qureshi, Israr, et al. Causes and Symptoms of Socio-Cultural Polarization: Role of Information and Communication Technologies. Springer Nature, 2022.

Question 2: Interest Groups

Interest groups’ strong influence on US politics

Interest groups have a significant impact on US politics because of their strong influence on the election process. According to Bianco and Canon, interest groups engage in elections by contributing to candidates’ campaigns, funding campaign advertisements, endorsing candidates, mobilizing individuals to assist in a campaign, and mobilizing a candidate’s supporters (380). These efforts have a significant impact on who gets elected. Therefore, politicians have to be compliant with the interests of interest groups to get elected or reelected.

In addition, interest groups have substantial impact on US politics through their power to influence through wealth, ideas, and numbers. Permissible state action sets the platform for lobbyists to access policymakers. Moreover, interest groups approach elected officials backed by a large number of members, and politicians view this membership as potential votes that can safeguard their power. Also, interest group members influence politics through great ideas that are provided through research findings and written bills for policymakers to introduce in the enactment process (Reyna 183). This power illustrates the interest group’s strong influence on US politics.

Examples of interest groups

Various interest groups are known to support different political candidates and parties across the divide. For instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is heavily associated with supporting Republican candidates. The NRA is reported to have spent an estimated $54 million in the build-up to the 2016 election. $30 million of this money was directed to efforts aimed to support the election of President Trump (Democratic National Committee par.4). In return, the NRA expected President Trump to support pro-gun regulations. Following the shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School, Trump conceded to NRA demands and failed to take action on gun control regulations. Similarly, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) endorsed and financially supported President Biden in the last elections. The LCV was keen on supporting pro-environment candidates across the country. To this end, the LCV invested $14 million in online advertisements and direct-mail campaigns supporting Biden (Brown-Kaiser par. 13). This contribution and endorsement immensely supported President Biden’s election.

Interest groups strategies

Interest groups apply different strategies to influence lawmakers in creating public policies. These strategies are broadly categorized into inside and outside strategies.

Some of the common inside strategies entail direct lobbying, drafting legislation and regulation, research, and working together. In direct lobbying, interest groups’ representatives meet with elected officials and bureaucrats and ask them to change policies to align with their policy goals (Bianco and Canon 374). Similarly, through drafting legislation and regulation strategy, interest groups assist legislators in drafting laws or prospective regulations (Bardes et al. 197). Under the research approach, interest groups prepare research reports or testify before congressional committees to inform congressional members on critical issues (Lantis 32). In working together, different interest groups join efforts in lobbying to increase their chances of success. For instance, Coca-Cola, Morgan Stanley, the National Association of Manufacturers, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise worked together to lobby for the tax cut law (Bianco and Canon 378). Despite their varying approaches, these strategies are increasingly effective.

Some of the outside strategies include grassroots lobbying, mobilizing public opinion, and electioneering. In grassroots lobbying, interest group members are directly involved in lobbying efforts. Members of interest groups send letters, engage in protests, and make telephone calls to express their demands (Bianco and Canon 379). Mobilizing public opinion is also another common strategy whereby interest groups attempt to alter what the public perceives concerning an issue in the hope that political representatives will see this shift and react by legislating or debating against new regulations or laws to maintain good relations with their constituents (Bianco and Canon 380). Electioneering is an equally effective strategy whereby interest groups participate in elections by contributing to political candidates, endorsing candidates, mobilizing a candidate’s supporters, and mobilizing individuals to aid in a campaign (Bianco and Canon 380). Interest groups can use one of these strategies or a combination of two or more to achieve their objectives.

Works Cited

Bardes, Barbara, et al. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials. Cengage Learning, 2022.

Bianco, William T and David T Canon. American Politics Today. 7th edition. 2021.

Brown-Kaiser, Liz. “Prominent Environmental Group Endorses Joe Biden.” 21 Jun. 2022, www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1188016#blogHeader>. Accessed 2 Jan. 2023.

Democratic National Committee. “How Much Did the NRA Pay to Buy Off the GOP?” 26 May 2022, democrats.org/news/how-much-did-the-nra-pay-to-buy-off-the-gop/>. Accessed 2 Jan. 2023.

Lantis, Jeffrey S. Foreign Policy Advocacy and Entrepreneurship: How a New Generation in Congress is Shaping U.S. Engagement With the World. University of Michigan Press, 2019.

Reyna, Veronica L. Latino Politics: Power, Intersectionality, and the Future of American Democracy. Cengage Learning, 2023.

First appeared on Assignment-Prep.com

0 notes

essaybrooks · 1 year

Text

Media’s role in the political process

Media bias

Types of media

Talk radio balances out media bias

Framework the media uses to influence public opinion

Works Cited

Bajwa, Sewa Singh. Social Media: Opportunities & challenges. K.K. Publications, 2022.

Bianco, William T and David T Canon. American Politics Today. 7th edition. 2021.

Hird, John A. Policy Analysis in the United States. Policy Press, 2018.

Qureshi, Israr, et al. Causes and Symptoms of Socio-Cultural Polarization: Role of Information and Communication Technologies. Springer Nature, 2022.

Question 2: Interest Groups

Interest groups’ strong influence on US politics

Examples of interest groups

Interest groups strategies

Interest groups apply different strategies to influence lawmakers in creating public policies. These strategies are broadly categorized into inside and outside strategies.

Works Cited

Bardes, Barbara, et al. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials. Cengage Learning, 2022.

Bianco, William T and David T Canon. American Politics Today. 7th edition. 2021.

Democratic National Committee. “How Much Did the NRA Pay to Buy Off the GOP?” 26 May 2022, democrats.org/news/how-much-did-the-nra-pay-to-buy-off-the-gop/>. Accessed 2 Jan. 2023.

Lantis, Jeffrey S. Foreign Policy Advocacy and Entrepreneurship: How a New Generation in Congress is Shaping U.S. Engagement With the World. University of Michigan Press, 2019.

Reyna, Veronica L. Latino Politics: Power, Intersectionality, and the Future of American Democracy. Cengage Learning, 2023.

First appeared on essaybrooks.org

0 notes