The Power of an Image

If suddenly the media had started displaying pictures of nooses before the Jena 6 incident, many different people and cultures may have received it differently. It is hard to make an educated guess how one would analyze a picture that could convey several different meanings, without knowing what the individual has been exposed to. Personally even before the Jena 6, I viewed nooses as a negative image that mainly connected with the slavery period in America, because that’s what I have been exposed to for so many years in the media and in textbooks. Therefore, I certainly understand the argument from the organizer of the protest when he stated, "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena." Yes, I agree the recent media flare up and hate messages with the nooses started in Jena but that particular hate message from the nooses started way before then. The Jena 6 incident only brought the image to the forefront for several citizens to relive again, and for many to experience first hand for the first time.

Lippmann stated in his proposal that, "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." His proposal clearly suggests that the protest organizer’s argument is valid. When one turns on the TV now and see nooses hanging everywhere, for majority of the public who is knowledgeable about the incident, they are going to instantly connect that image with Jena 6. Same goes for others who were indirectly affected by the incident. Regardless that one was exposed to this indecent behavior against their will or not, he or she can now identify themselves with some aspect of the picture, in which before hand they may have drawn ideas from previous knowledge they were depicted about the image.

The students who hung the nooses may not have necessarily intended to actually try to use the nooses. Hypothetically, they could have just been trying to intimidate the other students or make them feel inferior so that they would not sit under the tree again. They probably didn’t expect a physical reaction, but the fact that the victims did take it to a physical level indicates that the aspect of the image they identified themselves with was hate related and offensive. The immediate take over from the media of the incident allowed others to identify themselves with pictures in the same manner. Therefore; yes, "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere….” Yes it did start in Jena.

Jena 6

The picture of a noose has a negative connotation to me because of past knowledge of what it stands for. Lippmann is correct on that pictures are the surest way of conveying an idea, yet at the same time each individual person has a different feeling towards the picture presented in the blog. Once an individual makes their decision about what the picture means to them, I feel the idea has been fully conveyed. For example, when I look at the picture, I personally think of back in the day when they hung individuals for breaking the law. It is portrayed in several movies and books, for instance "The Crucible". I do not automatically think of slavery and the hardships they faced during those times. The "Jena 6" story is horrible and has obviously offended many individuals, including myself. Due to this story, whenever anyone sees a picture of a noose, their idea of what it means will most likely be directed to the Jena 6 case. The African-American students that were involved in this, I'm sure felt racially targeted and that is something that our society should not allow.

I totally feel that Lippmann is correct when he talks about how an idea is not fully conveyed in a picture without us having identified with something in the picture ourselves. I do feel that the situation in Jena is horrible and has obviously created a lot of emotional distraught among not only those directly involved, and not even just those in the black community, but anyone who is offended by such symbols. To be quite honest, whenever I see a picture or any portrayal of a noose, slavery and racial injustice are not the first things to come to my mind. I always picture in my head pirates or witches being hung rather than slaves. But either way, no matter whether or not you are talking about racial issues or something else, anytime a noose is shown, you can be certain of one thing..and that is that of wrongdoing. I'm sure for those African American students involved in the incident, seeing a picture like this, and more so, seeing the real thing, makes them feel as if they are in the same category with others hung, indicating evil or being thieves.

I can definitely agree with Lippman's statement about pictures. It seems as if to really understand the picture, we ourselves as people must have some sort of stake in the picture. Though the image of the noose has been around for quite some time, many people have not been able to fully grasp the idea of this image until the "Jena 6" story broke out.

As this picture has been shown on the media to tell this story, younger generations, such as ours, have gotten a better idea of the gravity of this image.

I think Lippmann's statement absolutely relates to this picture of the noose. Whether this current situation had happened or not, one usually associates a noose with the horrible history of lynchings and racial tension in our country, especially in the South. If we did not have the preconceived notion of what a noose usually stands for, we perhaps would just think this was a rope tied up in a fancy way and not associate it with racial issues. However, due to our prior knowledge of hangings, one automatically sees a satanic way of killing someone usually paired with racism when viewing the noose. Therefore, because of what we already know and feel about a noose, this picture shares an idea that most people think of when seeing it just as those in Jena probably thought when they saw it hanging from a tree.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, nooses are strongly associated with lynching, especially in the American South and especially when hanging from a tree. A noose in a gallows has an altogether different meaning – implying the law has been involved; whereas a noose in a tree is vigilante “justice”. African Americans were lynched in the past for trivial “offenses,” which not only served to maintain an unfair social order but also to devalue the lives of an entire group of people. Hanging a noose in the “white” tree after a black student sat there was meant to be a symbol- most likely that the black student had stepped above his “place” with the implied consequences that he, or any other black student who did the same, would be in danger of violence if not of being lynched. The fact that there was an understood “white tree” at all clearly shows sustained cultural tensions in the area where the ideas the noose was meant to convey are unlikely to be forgotten. Whether or not the student(s) who hung the noose would have actually followed through, the threat was very clearly and succinctly conveyed with that image that harkened back to a shared cultural history.

This situation in itself, even before media involvement, demonstrates Lippmann’s proposal that "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." The white students didn’t need to say anything to the black students. The noose said everything, and everyone, both black and white, understood its meaning because they grew up with it as part of their culture.

Once it became news, others outside the Jena area could also understand because a noose in a racial incident means a threat of lynching. The organizer is not trying to redefine a noose. The organizer is instead recognizing that this picture, which represents an implied threat, is being posted on websites to in fact threaten these students and convey hate. “And it all started in Jena” seems more a lament that the symbol was brought back into the public eye, and the hatred is there everywhere “now when you turn on the TV.”

It is a horrible situations to say the least. We should not be hearing news like this today. I think Lippman is correct with statement. Pictures are stronger than any words in this situation. You read the articles but the pictures of the noose and the pictures of the protesters walking in downtown Jena really give you the emotion and struggles of a town in disarray.With pictures people are able to see themselves in that picture. Like Lippman said, " the idea conveyed is not fully your own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." People have to have something to see to truly understand the situation and relate that picture to their lives and thoughts.

It is unfortunate that the event surrounding the Jena Six has reintroduced the noose as a symbol back into public discourse. As others have mentioned, I also believe this is a good example of what Lippmann was saying with his statement "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea." When it comes to identifying ourselves with the picture (the noose), it seems to me that the organizer whothat said "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena" is using the symbol of the noose to form an idea in our minds; possibly change how we viewed it before resulting in support for the Jena Six. This organizer wants us to pair the picture of the noose with the situation in Jena, however I am not so sure the public is allowing that idea to fully be their own. Some relate the the noose to the Jena Six who received too harsh a punishment while others may view it and think of the white schoolmate who was attacked. Some may choose not to relate it to this current situation at all and, like Prof. Wiggins mentioned in a previous post, the boys who initially hung the nooses may have seen them as a weapon; something that could actually be used on another person. All in all, I believe the picture of the noose is being used by all parties involved in the Jena Six situation to convey a number of messages - it's just a matter of who will successfully convey their idea to those in power who will be making the ultimate decisions on this case.

I think that pictures help us to make written text more specific, in the sense that movies based on books help to give readers a picture to go with their imagination, for written text can interpreted in so many different ways. In the same sense, a picture, although more specific, can mean a multitude of different things to a multitude of different peoples and cultures. It seems though, that at times an event can strike the hearts of so many people that a single picture no longer means a multitude of various things, but perhaps one single idea. A burning skyscraper may have meant many different things to people in 2000, but in Sept. of 2001 this same picture probably connotated the same images, ideas, and feelings to a majority of America. Basically, the point is that I agree with Lippmann's statement. It is not until we identify with a picture that we make it our own. This common identity will give rise to specificity among the majority.

The Language of Jena

The demonstration supporting the six black high school students in Jena, La., accused of assaulting a white schoolmate after nooses were hung in a tree on the campus grounds has reintroduced this symbol into public discourse.

In fact, one of the organizers of the protest said this about Web site postings and other messages that threatened the black students and their families: "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena."

Reflect on the above statement in light of Lippmann's proposal: "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture."

I agree completely...

With the statements already made about the symbol of the noose. These young students probably had seen the image of a noose multiple times before and, even though it generated images of hate and intolerance, once the symbol took on personal meaning for them, it went to a different level completely. Just as lippman stated, the symbol for the noose took another meaning once it was personalized for the students it was directed towards. We identify on a whole new level with symbols of hatred when it is directed at us personally. I feel that this is a great and unfortunately accurate example of the idea Lipmann was trying to convey about images and feelings from images.

md

In light of the events in Jena, LA, this picture obviously speaks a thousand words. Lippmann says that "pictures are the surest way of conveying an idea," and I think that the nooses that hung from the now famous tree where a black student dared to sit conveyed exactly what those who placed them there wanted them to: pure hate. This image doesn't say "hey, I don't agree with what you think," or "let's just agree to disagree," this image says "I hate you now, I have always hated you, and I always will."

Lippmann also says that we don't fully make an idea our own until we identify with the image. This could not be more true in this case. A noose (especially one hanging from a tree) is something that I can only assume most African Americans in the South identify with. It would be different, I think, if the image was a gun, knife, or really any other way of killing someone.

Whoever put the nooses in the tree that day knew two things: (1) this is a symbol of racism, hate, and murder, and (2) this symbol will strike the very core of those it is intended for.

"Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture."
-Lippman

It is unfortunate that a symbol of a noose was reintroduced into our society (and copy-cat nooses are being sited elsewhere as a result). In the American South, it was, and is, symbol of violence, bigotry, hatred, and days lived in fear. Internationally, it could be considered a symbol of suicide or forced death by way of rope and a hunter's knot. However, in any cultural setting, a picture of a noose evokes images of death.

With recent events supporting the Jena Six, this negative image has garnered even more attention from the media. For those people who did not have a memory to draw from to make an image of a noose "fully their own," they now can turn to any cable news station to see pictures that allow them to identify with the hatred, violence, and bigotry the image represents.

The American youth who grew up in a time where noose no longer dangled from trees and fiery crosses rarely flared, now have a picture to connect to the idea of racism. This week, at the Jena Six rally in Louisiana, the country watched, amazed at the staggering number of people who turned out for the peaceful protest. After hearing about busloads of USC students who also drove down to protest, I remembered Lippman's words. "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." Now that the media has grown significantly since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, pictures have even more potential to effect change by allowing the younger generations to make ideas their own. Maybe the recent media proliferation can effect some change?

Stereotypes simplify the world?

In Walter Lippman's Public Opinion, he argues that stereotypes help simplify a cluttered human world. Wouldn't fewer movie ratings do the same? Yes. There would be less confusion at the box office--albeit more whining from kids not able to get into some shows because they are days shy of their 18th birthday--but, overall, fewer movie ratings would certainly make parents' lives less complicated.

pictures in our heads

"Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture."

the noose in response to lippman's quote is a good example. before we all knew exactly what it meant, not necessarily to a specific event, but now I think we have it as a symbol for what happened in Jena. We have "identified ourselves with some respect of the picture" because it carries a certain meaning now. Before, it conveyed an idea of something that we could refer back to olden days, or of someone possibly commiting suicide. Yet now since the media has plastered this everywhere, they have turned it into the symbol that our heads relate to the event in history of what happened in Jena.

new movie codes

okay, less may be more but not in this situation. first of all the new idea would address grouping them into catagories that are very wide, and also based upon the things we group movies into already (violence, language, etc.) so what makes them think that people are going to appreciate this system better? I think having the one we have is more specific and if we don't choose to look at them then getting a new system isn't going to help either. i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's ridiculous. Three catagories for so many genres of movies? ha.

New Code

Imagine that Motion Picture Association of America President Dan Glickman announced today that the film rating and lobbying organization has streamlined its current five-category system down to three categories. Rather than G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 (see chart to the right), the new system will be A (All Admitted), U-18 (Under 18 requires adult supervision) and 18+ (Only 18 and Older Admitted). Glickman said the rating system will continue to be voluntary and film raters will continue to base their decisions primarily on language, adult themes and violence. He said the new system addresses concerns of major studios and film critics about inconsistency in ratings assignments; fewer categories makes for easier and cleaner assignments. He also said the large number of independent producers not submitting their films for review was an additional reason for the change, adding that experimental filmmakers could take comfort that their work would not be "branded unacceptable" under the new system.

Support or challenge the soundness of Glickman's reasons for the new code.

I personally think that eliminating the current ratings system in favor of this new 'simplistic' ratings system is garbage. I understand the simplicity of it, and I also see the pro that it may put a little more responsibility in the hands of parents to educate themselves as to what their kids want to see, and making sure that that is the movie that they walk into once dropped off at the theater, or whatever have you. However, in this age of faster and better and more, this new ratings system simply just isnt efficient whatsoever. By this new system, we pretty much have eliminated the PG and the PG13, thus now we would only have G and R.. so what.. we have a G that includes movies like Finding Nemo or Cinderella, but then movies like Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean would be paired with movies such as Saw or Hostel and all be labeled R?? That seems a bit much. The multi categorized system we have now makes it easier and simpler for parents to look at the ratings on movies, and know what kind of content that this movie may or may not contain. Granted, kids mature at all different levels, and there is all different kinds of content in these movies, but as someone mentioned before, that it the reasoning behind the listing of the objectionable content under the letter rating. This is what parents should be looking at. And I don't think that this makes them irresponsible. The bottom line is that parents simply need to be aware of what their children are watching, and I don't think that a new ratings system is the solution.

New Rating System... Less is Best!

The crux of the rating system is that it is to benefit children and parents, correct? So, what I'd really like to say, from a human standpoint, is: "if you can't control your children and the movies they see, then perhaps 1) you shouldn't have children or 2) you should be prepared to deal with the consequences (if any) of having children who have seen inappropriate movies." I hate it that the MPAA, the government, filmmakers, and private theater owners are held responsible for the eyes and ears of other people's kids. From a policy standpoint, however, I know that we are forced make rules and guidelines for the least of the least in society. I am very much in support of the simpler ratings system because it 1) puts more responsibility on Joe Citizen to decide what kind of messages are going into his or his kid's head, 2) it isn't so arrogant as to assume that such-and-such movie is or isn't appropriate for me or my family and 3) appears to be significantly less subjective and less likely to "pigeonhole" a film, thus making it more attractive to the movie industry, as a whole. Furthermore, for parents who are concerned with the content of movies and who do prefer to gather information before allowing their children to see a film, there are plenty of websites (screenit.com, pluggedinonline.com...) that screen movies and provide information on questionable content. Take responsibility...

New Code Response

I do not feel that eliminating the codes that are presently established and replacing them with these new codes would be as beneficial. I feel as though the codes that are currently in place are very beneficial to parents. By eliminating the current codes it will make it more difficult for a parent to choose which movies their children see and do not see. I would also like to add that for me it is not the ages that they put on the recommended codes that matter. For me it is the description of what that film may contain included under the rating that is the most important. Children mature in all different ways at all different times and for that reason I believe that the description of the rating is much more important than the age of the rating.

Stereotypical Christian?

This video came to my mind during our discussion about stereotypical Christians:



Enjoy!

Response to New Ratings

Although, I understand how the new ratings make it easier to define categories of movies , it would provide parents with much less information. By providing parents with either an all admitted or an 18 plus rating it makes it increasingly difficult to decide whether or not , it fit for a child to view. What a parent is willing to allow a 5, 9 ,13 and 15 year old to see is often quite different. With the new rating system it would very difficult for parents to make such decisions without first viewing the movies themselves, which has the potential to be time consuming and unrealistic. There is a huge difference between a 13 year old and an 18 old and despite the flaws of the current rating system it does address this difference.

Glickman has very clear reasons for his decision to move to the new three-category system for film rating and I believe the public should be fully supportive. Glickman has clearly thought through everyone that will be affected by the change and believes it is in the best interest of all. It should be understood and effectively communicated that the rating system continues to be voluntary. This new system should be supported because of its positive effects but the bottom line is that, regardless, there will be those who will not approve. It is better to make improvements such as Glickman has done than to stick with a controversial five-category system.

Go With the New System

I think that the new system is a good idea because it will be easier to classify movies and it won't be as subjective. You are basically keeping the same scale...A is equivalent to G, R is equivalent to the 18+. The only conflict that you would seem to run into is the U-18 because I don't feel like a 15 or 16 year old should have to have an adult with them in order to see a movie just because it includes the word "damn". I do, however, feel like the current rating system isn't really even applicable and doesn't really prevent people from seeing movies no matter who they are if they really want to. Plus, with the changing of times and the age at which kids are exposed to violence, language, and sexual behaviors on tv, I don't feel like you can set a rating on a movie to tell them they can't watch knowing that they see this kind of stuff everyday at home.

On the reviewers behalf, I think rating films would be an easier task since the categories are so broad. However, I believe that the rating system now is a lot better and more informative. I think both rating scales give the understanding of what is to be expected in the movies, but with more categories parents can better gauge the content of movies their children are seeing. It gives more detail and order for those not able to watch their children 24/7. I also think and agree with the previous post that changing the system for independent films is not the best reason to adapt the system. Either way, their films will be exposed.

Clearer ratings

I think reducing the rating levels from five to three would actually be a great idea. It would be easier to rate movies, and probably a lot easier to understand what those ratings mean. Honestly most people don't understand the difference between G and PG, and some have never even heard of NC-17. The rating system shouldn't be as complicated as it is. A child should either be allowed to see the movie, or he shouldn't.

Ratings Code

If the ratings board were to reduce the number of ratings available to classify films, then we would have even more problems. By only having three ratings, a film could be on the edge, and would be bumped up a rating to avoid letting in someone who is too young to see it. The film ratings board should not be so black and white, there must be more leadway and less judgement. If a film was made for someone 17 year old or younger, they would be unable to watch it without a guardian. This would also require a parent to be there for anything not rated for everyone, destroying the ability to make money from high schoolers going to see films over the weekend (which is a large demographic). There are many problems with the ratings board, but reducing the ratings will not help, atleast not this way.

Be More Cynical

As far as the definition goes, I do not think that applies to this particle situation. Senator Craig has been caught in something that he needs to get out of in attempts to save his career. This is one of those things that would keep him out of the political system for the rest of his life. Cynicism I have always understood as the questioning and natural disbelief of something someone is told. Senator Craig knows that we live in a cynical society, knowing that we will damn him as a guilty individual even before we have heard all the facts. He knows he may need more than his share of proof to prove his innocence.

Politics and cynicism

Reflect again on this portion of embattled Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's misfired voicemail message to his attorney, Billy Martin, which we discussed briefly in class.

"Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows that I have been railroaded and all that. Having all of that, we have reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30. I think it is important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon, and I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras."

Though we generally define "cynicism" as being scornfully negative about the motives of others ~ "they're only in it for themselves" ~ one might also define it, connotatively, as an acknowledgement that positive outcomes must rule the day, regardless of the measures needed to achieve those outcomes.

Do you agree with the latter definition? How does it square with Craig's voicemail message?

Senator Craig

In my eyes the senator's voicemail only makes him looks a self serving individual. Craig never once says that he is innocent of the accusations , he just tries to gloss them over by saying that he has been " railroad". By "reshaping" his statement he is clearly look our for his best interest. Now that there might be a chance for self preservation he is going to "Intent to resign" rather than actually resign , like he should. I do not agree with the latter definition of cynicism the ends do not justify the means. If it is necessary to lie, cheat, steal . etc. to create a positive outcome , the out come really isn't positive because it is tainted by the negative actions used to achieve it.

Desperate times call for desperate measures...

While I don't necessarily agree with the latter definition, I am not about to say that it is not frequently used or seen in situations such as this. I am not afraid to say that situations may be handled in this manner in a majority of situations. For, as some previous posts have stated, a person's reputation, especially when in a political or public position, is sometimes one of the most, if not the most, important aspect. A situation like this has the potential to crush even the most stable career, and I have no doubt that any attempt to spin the negative into the positive will be pounced upon, whether its morally right or not. However, I think that most of these decisions result out of sheer desperation to salvage whatever can be salvaged, and this is not the first time we have seen these actions. Clinton lying under oath, anyone? All sheer desperation. Do I blame him for taking unethical measures in order to get out of trouble? No. Do I agree. Absolutely not.

A Political World

I don't necessarily agree with the second definition because it's basically saying to cover up a lie or bend the truth, however; I feel that alot of politicians think it is necessarry to be cynical in that manner because it is very important to protect their reputations as politicians.Senator Craig's voicemail is a clear example of what goes on behind the scenes in the Political world, which may trigger curiosity to a large percentage of the public. Being in the public eye and having the entire world look at you in a negative manner is far more risky than trying to cover up a lie amongst a small group of peers. So I can say I understand why politicians place such an effort to put a spin on negative situations, but that does not make it morally right.

Cynicism vs. Cynical actions

Whether you are “scornfully negative” of another’s motives or acknowledge “that positive outcomes” (for the other involved) will “rule the day” simply because the other party will do whatever they can to achieve the most positive results for themselves, you automatically discredit your own battle and battle techniques. Therefore, you become a defeatist and a cynic. You assume you have no control; so why even try?

Meanwhile the other party (according to the second definition) is going to do just the opposite: try anything to achieve the results they want. But, is trying to achieve your goal cynicism? No. However, if you use illegal or unethical tactics to achieve that goal, you are, in a round-about way, being cynical. First, you are cynical because you assume that without doing everything you can--even breaking laws--you would not “rule the day.” In this situation you automatically assume the worst would occur. Therefore, I'd like to argue that using tactics themselves, as the second definition argues, no matter how unethical or illegal those tactics are, is not cynicism. Rather, being "scornfully negative about the motives of others," as written in the first definition, can convince a person that he or she must do anything and everything, to succeed. Consequently doing anything to achieve positive results is merely a symptom of a cynic--not cynicism itself.

Looking at Craig’s voicemail in light of these definitions of cynicism, it appears he may have followed an impulse and assumed the worst of others (first definition). However, when Specter, a prominent Republican senator, said he would support Craig, Craig, because he is a cynic as defined in the former definition, decided to think positively about the potential outcomes of his situation. After gaining the support of one senator, Craig decided to do whatever it took (going back on his signed statement of guilt, inserting vague language into his comments for a press conference, and trying to thwart the legal process he, as a United States Senator, promised to preserve and protect) to achieve positive results. Thus, he follows the thought processes of a cynic, and his actions are those of a cynic; but, the voicemail only reveals a symptom of his cynicism.

Out of a Job

Now, i don't mean to be a cynic myself but don't we, as PR students, have to accept that the majority of our job is putting a positive spin on negative situations? I think that bad things happen to everyone, its not cynical to not give up. All you can do sometimes is put your hands on your head and figure out how to get on, without accepting defeat. Whether he was innocent or not we cannot expect a person in a political position, or any position of authority for that matter, to just say "oops, i guess i'll quit now." There is always a chance of framing the situation in a way that makes it easier to swallow. I think that he was just trying his best to work through the situation. Can we say we would have done anything differently? He's not cheating or stealing, and we don't know for sure if he's even lying. All we can say is he's trying to make this work.

I don't agree

I don't agree with the second definition. How can anything be considered a positive outcome if it was achieved by any means necessary. Now obviously saying that I do not agree with something does not mean that other people do not. It is sad but I think most people in positions of power, like politicians, will stop at nothing to be successful. They will lie, steal, and cheat to make sure the public does not know that they lied, cheated, and stole. This voicemail is a perfect example. Nowhere in the message is any indication that he is innocent. He is only concerned with how they can spin the story, and that's wrong.

Politics and Cynicism

Logically, the second definition doesn't hold--positive outcomes (by virtually any definition) do not and never have ruled the day, completely without regard to the machinations of anyone whosoever. Also, it presents a very particular idea of "positive" events. If the only possible positive outcome is fueled by self-interest (as the second definition implies), there is no interpersonal concept of positive.

However, we are imbued--whether hard coded or learned--with an interpersonal sense of positive outcomes to most situations we might encounter. It requires effort to formulate a situation in which choosing from two or more possibilities does not present both an acceptably positive outcome and a more negative one. Arguably this sense of positive and negatives also sprouts from the basest instinct for self-preservation, but even so, self-sacrifice for the greater good is almost universally regarded as more positive than alternatives.

Therefore, cynicism is simply an acknowledgment that some, most, or all people conform to false (read: selfish) positives rather than real (read: interpersonal) positives. To apply this in plain English to the story at hand:

The only truly positive outcome possible in this story is the proper meting of justice to Larry Craig as the law defines it, and the subsequent decisions made by his voting constituents as to his electability. It would not be interpersonally positive for the general public to successfully reverse charges made against him that were factual, or to then mislead the public into siding with him. Therefore it all hinges on whether or not he actually did what he admitted to doing--something we'll probably never know. And at the end of the day, truly positive outcomes will still be out of the reach of those who seek them in self-interest.

While it might sound odd, I actually agree with both of the previous posts. I too support those in politics who are able to turn something as negative as this situation and try (though whether successfully is debatable) to accomplish a positive "spin." I don't feel that our society "enjoys" focusing on the negatives, though most people do exemplify a cynical attitude at one point or another. In this case, the press has done a superb job of creating a very large mountain out of a medium-sized molehill. However, this is their job, and we do have to give them credit for presenting this case as thoroughly as they have.

I actually do agree with the latter definition of "cynicism." We, as a society enjoy dwelling on the negatives that encompass our lives. Because of that, I fully support someone in politics and the media taking a situation and turning it into something positive. We think poorly on this because it makes us believe we are being lied to when we are really just seeing the other side of things. We may not appreciate knowing about the spin or the process it may take us through, but if something positive can come out of it for all involved, the better off we will be and the quicker we can move on.

I disagree with the latter definition also. I feel that cynicism does have a negative connotation. Cynical people, in my opinion, find a way to bring out the negative in a situation and attempt to make the culprit look worse. It is very hard to change the views of a cynical person. In this situation, I feel that what he did was wrong, but that the press could be taking the words and flipping them to make the situation look worse. I feel this is a way to bring more attention to the case. Also, I think he is taking the right approach to ensure the best outcome for what he has done. If he resigns, he stays in control. I think he should because I personally don't feel that someone in such a position should be modeling that sort of behavior.

I agree that there is a definite barrier between the press and government. Since there is limited time to ask and answer questions within a conference, some things may be taken out of context since the speaker cannot fully explain to the best of their capabilities what he may mean by a term that was used. The press I believe takes it upon themselves to either make the speaker/situation look amazing or horrible. There is also a lot of things that we as a public do not see since we are not sitting in the conference room with the press. Television, I think, can make it seem as if the conference is all positive, when in actuality, it could be causing an uproar. I personally do not think that we can believe everything we hear or read. I take politics with a grain of salt because you never know who is telling the truth and who is lying.

I disagree with the latter definition of cynicism. To me, a cynic is a person who is very negative and hard to share the same views with. As far as the whole Senator Craig voice message goes, I do think that the message could have been slightly taken out of context. I'm not saying that what he did was okay, but there are often barriers between the press and the government in which ones views may try to sway the American population one way or the other. For example, we do not know what he meant by being "railroaded". It could be taken so many ways and the press may try to make it have a negative connotation. Honestly, I think that he is just trying to cover up what actually happened even though the truth has already come out. I agree though that he should be taken out of office as soon as possible for what has happened.

I disagree with the machiavellian definition of cynicism. I feel cynicism, in this case, is more of a disregard for the truth and a somewhat selfish outlook on saving your own skin. Its a total lack of respect for the beliefs of others and a determination to bend the thinking of those around you to your will. Senator Craig should be relieved of office as soon as possible for even being associated with the claim in the first place.

md

I agree that there is a definite barrier between the press and the masses, both in the questions that are asked by reporters and in which of those questions we are allowed to view as an audience. The point I would like to make is whether or not we, as consumers of the media, consider this to be a bad thing. Think for a moment about what it would be like to go directly to the source for all of our information. The press is designed to provide convenience, not all people want to know each and every detail of what a speaker has said, we don't have the time or the effort to listen to a 30 minute speech. I think that most people these days want to watch the news in the morning or evening, quickly be caught up to date, and get on with their day. So even though it's true that we are not getting all of the facts, I can't help but wonder if we necessary want all of the facts. In a day when time is almost as valuable as money, these barriers we speak of are only a small side effect of the convenience we require.

barriers in politics

As a lot of others said, I also think that some statements are taken out of context in press conferences. Also, I believe that the ambiance of these events are also important to report. Sometimes I feel that the only thing that is recorded is words not reactions. I feel that reactions can "say it all", and often can replace words. In press conferences you usually only see the speaker and a quick clip of who ever is asking a question. This can be biased at times, because you might feel that everyone fully agrees with the speaker, especially when the camera man shows the only person that was in the room nodding their head, when in reality the mood could be completely different. Even if you have a live tapping there could still be biased shots of the room and the events that take place there.

Barriers

Often there are barriers between the press and the gov't. Although we would like to believe that the gov't tells us everything they know, the fact is we often hear only what we need to. Like the war in Iraq, the public/press were told a specific story that, as we now know, was untrue. Without these "facts", it would have been much harder to find public backing of the war.

The press, in some cases, are not allowed to answer specific questions which are times where the gov't/president are not willing/able to give away valuable information. Many of these situations cause doubt in our gov't from the people. This disconnect leads many to believe that the gov't is not concerned with us.

As a member of a public watching a press event, many events can keep us from fully realizing the entire message. Like it was previously stated, many distractions (noise) can keep us from hearing the full message. The fact that we can not necessarily give feedback also creates a barrier from the gov't.

"I guess you had to be there" is the first comment that comes to my mind when thinking of the barriers there are between being at the "Big Dance" in person versus watching it on television. Aside from the obvious framing that takes place in the speeches and the questions, I believe one of the biggest barriers for those of us watching the question and answer section on television is that we are not getting the full experience. We are battling at home with noise (kids crying, cooking dinner) that keeps us distracted and, even if we were concentrating 100 percent at the discussions which are taking place on our television screen, we still do not receive the full 360 degree effect of seeing the reactions of our peers around us or the effects of the many television cameras surrounding the room. Not only do we get the framing of what the politicians want us to hear but we also get the framing of what the cameramen want us to see. What we see and what we hear is just one snapshot of the reality of it.

Barriers to the Truth

I agree with the others. Often times, words are taken out of context, speakers are misquoted, etc. There is constantly the threat of reporter bias and spin. These factors have the potential to seriously misconstrue the true meaning of what was said. People must beware of these traps and consider all factors that may alter the "truth".

Irritating Media

It has become increasingly apparent that both local and national news casts are more interested in entertaining their audiences than reporting solid, newsworthy subject matter. Celebrities and their dramatic lives have overtaken the media industry. What frustrates me the most is that we as a society are the ones who exacerbate this problem by continuing to tune in. Why are people so interested in other people's lives? Do we need this information for comparison to ourselves? Why are so many Americans obsessed with celebrities? Media plays a major role in this by constantly shoving this useless information down our throats. The media decides what we should watch, and what we should "think" is important.

I recently watched the documentary "Journeys With George," which follows the experience of a journalist assigned to cover George W. Bush's presidential campaign. What I found the most interesting was the seemingly close relationship that the press corps developed with the candidate, as they traveled together and interacted on a daily basis. It was interesting to see how Bush's interactions with the filmmaker, Alexandra Pelosi, were so mixed, as the film showed them talking about both her crush on a fellow reporter, as well as Bush's attempt to win her vote.
A similar situation occurs in the White House. I think there is a danger in having an assigned press corps to cover the president, because it means information from the White House is being filtered through the same reporters all the time. On top of that, these reporters often spend so much time with the president and his staffers that the lines between personal and professional relationships could potentially be blurred. I can easily see how a reporter could lose his/her perspective on where his/her loyalty is supposed to lie.

The Big Dance - a perfect way to describe covering the White House. To many journalists, being assigned to the White House Press Corps is the culmination of years of work. Without a doubt, barriers exist in the White House. Everything that is told to the press is carefully crafted to sound as positive as possible. Since administration after administration has perfected the artform of trying to mislead the press, today's press corps are there to sift through the information they are given for that little nugget of gold. Unfortunately and unfairly, today's press have to try to break down the barriers, without any help.

The types of media that push my buttons...

It really annoys me to see commercials on television whose content makes virtually no connection to the product being advertised. I realize that this is a tactic to get my attention, and admittedly sometimes it works; but if you can't sell a product without using humor and shock value to get my attention, it's probably a product that I don't really need. Spam/pop-up ads are another type of media that I really hate. The fact that I can recieve anywhere from 20-50 emails daily from all sorts of solicitors is bothersome. I feel that there really should be some sort of regulation in this area. I also dislike news commentary/opinion shows where the host will invite guests on to argue their point of view concerning some sort of controversial current event, but then rudely interrupts the guest, not allowing them to express their point of view. I've even seen some hosts go as far as to cut the audio of the guest if they didn't like what they were saying.

While some reporters may be invited to attend the "Big Dance," I believe most are told my their superiors to cover that particular beat. With that said, I had the privilege during a May-mester course to speak with two journalists who are currently covering the G.W. Bush White House. They would be the first to tell you that covering press conferences and asking questions, at least in the past few years, has been like hitting a brick wall for a living. Though constantly hitting brick walls would theoretically hurt one's dancing shoes, these reporters still attend each performance and do their best to keep from dancing to the tune the press secretary tries to set. So to finally answer the question, yes: a White House press conference is a dance, and yes, there are barriers to truth. The press secretary tries to set the rhythm, beat, and style of music while quickly avoiding questions or rewording answers to put the executive branch in the most positive light. In contrast, the reporters covering their assigned beat attempt to keep from dancing to the press secretary's rhythms and instead, look for the truth separate from the 'spin.' Back and forth, back and forth they will go, but ultimately, the press secretary is the maestro. He or she can end the music and information flow instantly and the reporters can do nothing. So those covering White House press conferences must be 'quick on their feet' and avoid 'stepping on toes' to keep the music playing and the dance--the flow of information--constant. With all of the quick stepping done the press secretary and the reporters there are bound to be errors in information and interpretation of that information. Finally, in an age of soundbites, those political soundbites may relay a different message to the public than the sender of that message intended. With these barriers, it is easy to see why some may distrust the press and politicians. One can only hope that those participating in that dance are conveying information minus without bias, spin, or ulterior motives.

Everything is Twisted...

The barrier is the deforming of the original message. Also, I firmly agree with whoever stated that the journalists are mostly invited and the message that is given to them is twisted and manipulated in order to spin it to the public in a certain or favorable way. This picture is a good example of the barriers that the public has to endure when it comes to matters of the nation. We never get the whole picture, just the sensational and watered down. There is never a "here is how it is and here is what we are going to do fix it, want in?" speech.

Everything is under control folks(presses the button for code red).

md

Initial Barriers

I think that one of the more prominent barriers that Lippman would argue is the barrier between the event and the public, or the idea of a pseudo-environment derived from the actual or real environment. The idea seems to be that if the public is given full access to all information regarding an event, the there is a probability that there will be misconceived impressions. Lippman says that "instead of letting the public act on all the facts [...], the authorities [present] only certain facts, and these only in such a certain way as would be most likely to steady the people. I agree also with an earlier post that mentioned that one of the most immediate barriers is the mere presence of the press, as they are most always pre-picked, asking known, pre-determined questioned to an authority that has known of and approved their presence.

Barriers between the public and the truth...

The events that are discussed at any press conference are subject to what Lippman might call fictionalization by the modes of communication that they are passed along to the public. The events being discussed have passed through analysts, advisors, and public relations experts before even reaching the conference. Once this "pseudo-reality" is passed on to the press, a number of variations are imposed upon the original content, changing it further to serve each medium's needs. Not that this necessarily is an intentional attempt to mold the story, although sometimes it certainly is. Lippman says that "the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" and that "we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it." Therefore as information is passed through the various levels of communication, it is edited, cropped and simplified for the masses.

With these events broadcasted to the nation, I do feel Lippmann could argue that there are barriers to the truth. For this one particular event shown in the picture, I feel there are a couple of barriers. I feel that much of the information could be taken out of context when it is delivered. The media cannot possibly deliver every question and answer given during a press conference, so when information is chosen it may be shortened or clipped. The people will then take the information and interpret it as they would like to. Also, if there is one reporter who is more biased than another, we may not receive the message in the tone it was originally given; even though they are supposed to be representing the nation as a whole.

I think the barriers would be the fact that the journalists are invited to the press conferences. The journalists are most likely picked on their writings and reporting in the past which are most likely in favor of the president and his policies. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the questions the journalists ask are screened by the president's own press team. This does not allow the entire truth to be told, only the truth that the president's press team wants to be told.

Pseudo-Environment of a Pseudo-Event

I think the first barrier to "truth" is that the press conference itself is what Boorstin called a "pseudo-event" - an event that would not occur without the media there to record it. It's not a spontaneous happening that these journalists are trying to record. The whole event is contrived from the moment the president and his advisors (or really anyone giving a press conference) decide they are going to hold a conference. The topic is generally well-defined before the reporters show up. And even if reporters want to ask questions off topic, it's unlikely to last for long (and they may not be asked back if they ask too many uncomfortable questions). The speaker (in this case the president) is often rehearsed with prepared statements and pre-formulated answers to questions that support their point of view.

The Big Dance

Some journalists call being assigned to the White House an invitation to the "Big Dance" ~ not unlike being called up from the minor leagues to the majors. In the photograph at the right, President Gerald Ford holds a press conference in 1975 in the Old Executive Office Building. The picture appears to capture a moment of spontaneuous interaction between the press corps and the president. Even though these events were and are broadcast to the nation, Lippmann might argue that they contain barriers between the public and the truth. What might those barriers be?

Professor Wiggins

A Man's World?

The advertisement to the left is from the 1930s. What do you make of its message? Do you imagine everyone who viewed this advertisement received the same message? Are there multiple messages here?

Professor Wiggins

Even though information is "live" there are ways to edit it. For example, there can be a short time delay from when the speaker talks and when the speech is aired, giving time to edit what the public hears. Also, because the speeches are often planned in advance, the element of spontaneity and absolute truth is removed. Speeches are edited by writers, and they are used to fit a specific agenda. The agenda is then interpreted by those who have heard it first hand, and often times, it is given a fresh or different meaning that what was actually intended.