Bright Hall

Misunderstandings About Islam

Parisa Saranj — 2009-04-14T00:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Featured Stories, UMass

For nearly a decade, Islam has been involved in heated debates throughout the United State. Many of the defining issues of our time have involved religious differences, and yet the Muslim world continues to be largely misrepresented by the media. Some of the most basic rules and beliefs within the faith remain unexplored or unknown.

Here is a look at some common questions and misunderstandings.

o. Hijab, Muslim women's headscarf, is the most visible indicator of Islam today. Hijab literally translates to modesty and morality. Whether to veil or not depends on the interpretation of modesty among Muslim women. Some argue that Hijab oppresses women and limits their ability to interact in the social realm. Headscarf debates have developed of late in Europe, where many Muslim women claim that Hijab should be an independent and optional choice.

o. Hate crimes and backlash against Middle Easterners and Muslims after the tragic 9/11 attack and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have increased both in the US and in Europe. Still, for many the term Muslim means terrorist. The majority of these hate crimes are regularly committed against average Muslim citizens. It is often overlooked that terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda who are interpreting Islam to the most extreme ends are a small minority among Muslim sects and make up a minute population of Muslims around the world.

o. So, how many wives is it? It is crucial to state that monogamy among Muslims is the norm. But it is true that Islam does not provide restrictions against polygamy. When looking at the Quran -- the holy book of Muslims -- polygamy is encouraged at times of war, when many women are widowed and the support of orphans could strengthen the sense of society and community. At the same time, Islam only allows polygamy if the man is capable of providing equal opportunity and support for his wives. It is important to note that many Muslim scholars today are arguing for a more modern reinterpretation of Islamic laws.

o. Are all Muslim Arabs? No. The largest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia while Saudi Arabia is the largest Muslim Nation among Arab countries. Also, Christians, Jews, and other religious groups live in the Middle East along with Muslims.

o. Allah, an Arabic word which means "one God" refers to the god of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is often misunderstood that Allah of Islam is different from the God of Christianity. In the simplest words, Islam is an Ibrahamic religion which does not deny or disapprove of the other two Ibrahamic religions.

o. Who is Prophet Mohammad ? Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad is the messenger of God. He is the last Prophet after Moses and Jesus. It is often thought that Muslims worship Prophet Mohammad as the God. Some controversies after the depictions of the Prophet in the Danish newspaper supported this belief that since Muslims worship the Prophet, they were enraged. Simply, Islam does not allow any depiction of the Prophet or other religious figures.

o. 72 virgins promised? The idea that Islam promises 72 virgins to Muslim suicide bombers was spread for the first time by the publication of cartoons in a Danish newspaper in 2006. Many offended Muslims from around the world criticized the images. The debate over what rewards and punishments Islam promises to Muslims demands deep and detailed interpretations. However, Islam strictly condemns any type of suicide and there is no verse in the Quran that urges Muslims to sacrifice themselves for the sake of 72 virgin wives.

o. Jihad is one of the most debatable topics of Islam today. It carries various connotations. While it literally means to struggle, the interpretation of "holy war" has seemed to stick. What fascinates me the most about this topic is that only a small group of fundamental and militant Muslims interpret Jihad as what Daniel Pipes and others call "legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims."

It is unfortunate how the majority of Islam world is accused of radical thinking on social, political and women's issues. If these simple questions and answers addressed here will soon be known fact, there is hope for a peaceful dialogue to further question assumptions and misunderstanding about Islam, the Middle East and Muslim women.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

College Seniors Leaving Jobs to Search for Employment

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-12T22:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Small Campus, Big Story, Featured Stories, USC, The Economy, Recession on Campus

Bright Hall explores the far-reaching effects of the financial crisis on the youth and campuses of America. Click here for the full series.

In an e-mail to fellow student workers in a university office, my colleague penned a letter which was at once both sad and terrifically ironic.

"I'm having a much harder time finding a full-time job after graduation than I anticipated," my friend, a senior majoring in print journalism, wrote.

"Unfortunately, I am going to have to cut back on my hours ... in order to dedicate more time to the job search," she said, asking if anyone could pick up her Friday shift for the rest of the semester.

The mood among campus seniors hinges on whether one has plans for after graduation. With final exams approaching and graduation ceremonies only a few weeks away, a sense of anxiety is increasingly apparent -- and it's not just the print journalism majors who are struggling.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.9 percent of adults between the ages of 20 and 24 were unemployed last month, well over the national average of 9 percent. Adults ages 25-34 face similar odds, with 10 percent unemployed.

The New York Times today rightly points out that even though older Americans have lower unemployment rates, they face longer periods of unemployment and are paid substantially less in new jobs.

But breaking into the job market is proving to be an especially difficult task in the current economic climate. Many college seniors have already completed one or more unpaid internships, and the idea of beginning another -- a common piece of advice -- is both unappealing and often financially impossible.

My friend's on-campus job is her third part-time position this semester, in addition to a full class schedule. With her apartment lease ending, she's searching for a new apartment, in which city she knows not, and faces dauntingly high security deposits upon reaching a decision.

Perhaps sleeping on the parents' couch in the interim isn't such a bad idea. But for graduates of an elite institution, the prospect of temporary unemployment despite a hard-earned four-year degree is only now fathomable in the incredulous minds of students.

And so, some seniors are cutting hours at their campus jobs ... to spend more time searching for employment.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Aaron Schock Adds Sex Appeal to Republican Party

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-07T22:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, News, Media, Notre Dame

The Republican Party keeps getting sexier.

They've had an uphill battle. In the fall, John McCain had to compete with the sex appeal of Barack Obama (those abs!) and Joe Biden (those teeth!), but McCain proved he had more sexy in reserve than America has oil in reserve offshore when he introduced Sarah Palin (those legs!) as his running mate.

But Americans voted "Yes, we can" instead of "Drill, baby, drill," and Palin retreated back to Alaska, so the Republicans were left with a sexy deficit (except for when Palin family scandals pop up in the news once a week).

That deficit has been filled. Aaron Schock is in the House.

Of Representatives, that is. Schock represents Illinois' 18th District, and at 27, he is the youngest Member of Congress and the first to be born in the 1980s. He's not just a pretty face, hair and body. Not surprisingly, Schock is your typical over-achiever. He graduated from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. with a B.S. in Finance, a four-year degree, in two years.

In his early teens, he began working after-school jobs and invested the money he made, making his first real estate purchase at age 18, according to his official House Web site. He entered public service by serving on the Peoria School board starting when he was 18 years old.

When he was 23, he was elected to the Illinois House, where he shared the 2007 award with then-Senator Barack Obama from the Illinois Committee for Honest Government for his "Outstanding Legislative and Constituent Service." He spoke at the 2008 National Republican Convention, and now that he is in Congress, he is sitting on three committees: the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Small Business Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He's also been named Deputy Republican Whip.

And, perhaps most notably, he's been named "hottest freshman in Congress" by the readers of the liberal blog site Huffington Post.

Schock has been getting a lot more attention in the media than the average freshman Member of Congress, due to his good looks and young age. Meghan McCain wrote a blog post for The Daily Beast about "The GOP's House Hottie." I opened the Chicago Tribune yesterday to find an article about Schock, asking "Has GOP found its rock star?"

TMZ has been following Schock as he walks between his office building and the Capitol, and a few weeks ago posted a picture of Schock in his bathing suit (Schock gives shirtless Obama a run for his money).

Schock appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, also of the Washington Post, who asked him about his appearances on TMZ. In a weird moment, Kurtz asks Schock if he wants to take off his jacket and roll up his sleeves to give TMZ more footage. Luckily, Schock had the common sense not to disrobe for a Sunday morning show. Save it for the late night shows.

Schock has a Doogie Howser meets Brad Pitt thing going on. He should own it. In the Chicago Tribune Monday, he told reporter James Oliphant he's using the media coverage to keep communication channels open.

"First, you've got to get their attention," he said. "Step one in getting anyone's vote is getting their attention."

First Barack Obama. Now Aaron Schock. Illinois' prime export is quickly becoming hot, young, driven politicians.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Did The NYT Kill A Story Linking Obama to ACORN?

Tony Romm — 2009-03-30T20:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, American University

WASHINGTON -- Did The New York Times wrongly spike a story that would have implicated then-candidate Barack Obama in the ACORN controversy? So testified Heather S. Heidelbaugh, a lawyer representing Republicans in an ACORN lawsuit, during an overlooked House Judiciary subcommittee hearing last week.

According to Heidelbaugh's prepared remarks, NYT beat reporter Stephanie Strom submitted to her editors in late October a story that alleged Obama offered the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, a list of its "maxed-out donors" for their get-out-the-vote fundraising operations. The primary source in the piece was Anita Moncrief, a fired ACORN employee and frequent informant to Strom. However, per Heidelbaugh's testimony, the Times refused to publish the controversial article because, as Strom allegedly told her source, "it was a game changer." Strom subsequently penned not a single additional ACORN story between the described incident and the November election, Heidelbaugh added.

Although Strom could not be reached for comment, the Times' Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, told The Bulletin of Philadelphia that the NYT "do[es] not discuss [its] news gathering and won't comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."

Even so, it remains unclear whether any wrongdoing actually occurred. If the allegations are true, Obama's collusion with ACORN could constitute "gross violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," Heidelbaugh said. However, the hearing's participants did not further inquire as to how or why this was the case.

Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to indict the Times for journalistic malpractice.
Even if Obama did, in fact, conceal his real relationship with ACORN, it is quite possible that newspaper editors lacked adequate sourcing to prove it. Moncrief, who provided the NYT much of its inside information, was fired by ACORN in 2008 for misusing its corporate credit card. Her questionable motivations, combined with the last-minute nature of Strom's story, may have contributed to the Times' decision to kill it.

Yet, this is hardly the first time observers have excoriated Obama on the subject of ACORN. During the 2008 campaign, the Democratic nominee fielded an array of criticisms about it, many of which alleged he was involved in its fraudulent voter registrations and questionable fundraising efforts. Although the campaign successfully deflected each of these insinuations, inevitably emerging victorious in November, Republicans and Democrats alike have since expressed an interest in further investigating ACORN's business practices -- especially those originating during the 2008 campaign.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Wow, Obama Made a Joke on a Joke Show. Get Over It.

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-20T10:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University

Way to break a leg, chief.

Anyone cruising around on the Drudge Report this morning got a glimpse of a grainy image of Barack Obama bowling, above the headline "GUTTER BALL." The jab is a reference to Obama's comment on The Tonight Show that his new bowling score of 129 is "like Special Olympics or something."

Now critics are jumping all over Obama's quip, even after a spokesman hastily dished out a statement in defense saying that the president "made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics."

And apparently, before Obama's appearance even aired on television, the president called the Special Olympics chairman from Air Force One and apologized for being funny.

"He was very sincere, expressed an interest and an openness in being more engaged in the movement, and said he was a fan of the movement," chairman Tim Shriver said on Good Morning America, " and I think importantly he said he was ready to have some of our athletes over to the White House to bowl or play basketball or help him improve his score."

So much for wanting a president we can relate to. Raise your hand if you've never made a joke about the Special Olympics.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Thought so. It would be naive of us to assume Obama is forever stoic, even in a time of economic gloom. He may not be Jerry Seinfeld (what do they do with the handicapped parking spaces at the Special Olympics, just pile all the cars into those two spots?), but at least he's trying.

For the record, the audience was too busy laughing at Obama's actual score to hear the Special Olympics crack and react to it, but everyone at home heard it loud and clear.

Let's hope it doesn't cripple his public standing.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Huffington Post: Whose Side Are They On?

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-19T08:32:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Media, The Economy

Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, yesterday admitted to his role in allowing AIG to pay its executives bonuses with taxpayer money. He told CNN that he was responsible for adding language to the stimulus bill that would allow such contracts to retain their legality, despite saying Tuesday that he had nothing to do with the language.

The news isn't great for Dodd, who is already stumbling in his home-state polls. But one place you'd never suspect that is The Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post -- or "HuffPo" -- has long been a Democrat-friendly news aggregator and blog hub, known for its screaming, all-caps banner headlines pertaining to the issue du jour. So yesterday, following Dodd's admission, the Huffington Post decided to instead put the blame on the Federal Reserve.

"WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON?" HuffPo asked, above the more specific headline, "Fed Failed To Tell Obama About AIG Bonuses." That second statement has certainly been a talking point from the White House, which has insisted that Barack Obama did not know about the bonuses until just before the public found out.

That's not all, though. Below the website's main picture of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the AIG building and Obama, another sub-headline reads, "Dodd: Treasury Insisted On Weakening Bonus Provision," again playing to the Democrat's spin that he was pressured by the administration to add the language to the stimulus bill.

This should not be a surprise to many people, and this is by no means the first time such selective headlining has appeared in the Huffington Post. Yet with nearly 8 million visitors per month, the Huffington Post is trailblazing the way for online opinion molding.

Arianna Huffington, the founder of the website, has said that her creation is the new form of journalism. Yet most of the site's content is from other news sources, such as breaking news from The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Associated Press. Often, HuffPo will scream a headline that links to a page on its site with pasted text from another news publication's story. For example, in HuffPo's headline about the Fed not telling Obama about AIG bonuses, the website links the text to this page, which reads: "ABC News: Sources in the Obama administration Thursday said ..." before another link to ABC that says, "Read the whole story."

And in its current headline, "ADDING INSULT TO INJURY," HuffPo skips itself as a middleman and links directly here, to Bloomberg.

Yet despite this method of newsgathering -- called aggregation, because it is not original reporting -- the Huffington Post has defended itself as being a real form of journalism, like newspapers. One major difference, though, is its lack of fact checking. An embarrassing consequence of hasty cut-and-pasting hit the HuffPo in February when it linked to a YouTube video that had been digitally altered to make it seem as if media host John Gibson referred to Attorney General Eric Holder as a monkey. After attentive viewers pointed out the mistake, the Huffington Post put up this seemingly awkward apology, "John Gibson Did Not Compare Eric Holder To Monkey With Bright Blue Scrotum (UPDATED)."

The Huffington Post, seen as a liberal alternative to Matt Drudge's aggregating website, also defends its sense of journalism by pointing to its presidential campaign scoop during last year's primaries. A contributor, Mayhill Fowler, had attended a private fundraiser with Obama in San Francisco and taped his now-infamous comments about how Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion." If the Huffington Post is biased, it argued, then why would it post such a damaging piece to Obama?

The answer lies in timing. Obama made the closed-door speech April 6, and the HuffPo contributor -- who donated to Obama's campaign -- mulled over the story for five days before posting it. In objective, tried-and-true journalism, reporters don't wait for their prejudices to decide if they should post up a snippet or not, no matter whom it praises or condemns.

"Our highest responsibility is to the truth," Arianna Huffington told the Bay Guardian at the end of last year. "The truth is not about splitting the difference between one side and the other. Sometimes one side is speaking the truth. ... The central mission of journalism is the search for the truth."

It would be nice to see Huffington follow her own advice every day. The Observer has ranked the Huffington Post the world's most powerful blog, but it is simply that -- a blog, with a clear ideological preference to who benefits and who doesn't. The hub is a good source for breaking news from a variety of places, but almost always news that favors liberals -- or, more likely, items that embarrass Republicans.

"Someone is going to sue the Huffington Post," Joshua Benton, the head of Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab, told Time. "It's not just about the volume of the content that it appropriates. It's about the value."

We can all admit that the news media is transforming as the Internet eclipses disintegrating newspapers. As Arianna told the Bay Guardian, "We're all basically trying to reinvent journalism."

But let's leave the reinventing to the journalists.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

John Edwards: Back At It

Megan Baker — 2009-03-12T11:17:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, St. John Fisher College

After sitting back and letting his affair and possible love child blow over the public for seven months, John Edwards has stepped back into the limelight; only this time as a passionate advocate for those suffering from poverty.

In his second public appearance since September, Edwards spoke at Brown University where he discussed what he has been doing since the election and what his new aspirations are. Obviously the topic of his affair was on a lot of the audiences' minds, and he did address it...sort of.

In response to a question raised by a student who claimed to be a campus organizer for his campaign about whether or not it was "just or fair" for politicians to be held to a "higher moral standard," Edwards responded:

"It is not for a candidate to decide what is appropriate and what's not appropriate. That's something every single American has a right to decide for themselves. We live in a free country where people have a right to voice their views and have a right to form their views without limitation...

"It is not for me to impose on anybody what they can observe and can't observe. I have my own view, which I will keep to myself. But I believe it is enormously important to have the best thinkers and the best visionary people to lead our country where it needs to go."

Spoken like a true politician...er, advocate.

So now that we all know that Edwards plans to step away from politics and dedicate his life to a cause close to his heart (Al Gore anyone?), it's fair to ask: Is it too soon? In my opinion, its not.

Do Americans really expect John Edwards to sit in the shadows for the rest of his life because he cheated on his wife? If you haven't noticed, infidelity in Washington happens quite often.

According to Gary Pearce, a Democratic political consultant who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate campaign, Edwards has two choices; wait for the scandal to blow over or "subject himself to a public cross-examination." Pearce's recommendation? Speak up.

"Long-term, that's what he has to do. He has to tell the truth and hope that time heals all wounds if he wants to return to the public stage."

Brown University political scientist Wendy Schiller also feels that now is the time for Edwards to regain some credibility.

"When you can voice a message the way John Edwards can, I think you can still remain relevant," Schiller said. "He should get on the trail, give speeches on populism, and make the case that even though he's got personal problems, he's still willing to advocate on behalf of those who can't help themselves."

So America, Edwards made his choice, now we have to make ours. Do we scrutinize him for the rest of his life for making a mistake or do we allow him to try to help the poor both here and around the world?

Your call.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Michelle Obama's Arms in the Spotlight

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-11T07:32:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Featured Stories, News, Notre Dame

I'm visiting friends in Los Angeles and just went window-shopping on Rodeo Drive, the famous Beverly Hills shopping district. High-end fashion is on my mind - though not in my shopping bags.

Right now there's no higher fashion icon than Michelle Obama. The new First Lady has been on the cover of several magazines since she moved into the White House. The consensus: she's looking good.

The Cold War had the arms race. Now we have the arms watch.

The First Lady appeared on the cover of the March issue of Vogue, her muscular arms bare. She was on the cover of People magazine in bare arms, talking about life in the White House. She was snapped in a sleeveless dress in the White House kitchen. And when President Obama gave his first address to a joint session of Congress, she was there to watch him, in bare arms in February.
Michelle's arms made an appearance in Maureen Dowd's Sunday New York Times column. "The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama's sculpted biceps," Dowd wrote.

Michelle is on the cover of the March issue of The New Yorker, depicted in three outfits as a model on a catwalk. She is wearing sleeves in all three outfits. It's a bit of a disconnect from all the bare arms pictures. Who knows? It's The New Yorker. Their cartoons don't make much sense either.

Robin Givhan, the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion editor, wrote in The New Yorker about the First Lady's preference for arms-baring outfits , even in the dead of winter. (Her husband chided Washingtonians for being winter-weather wimps, but he's not the one walking around in summer clothes.)

"The arms represent personal time," Givhan wrote. "...The arms imply vanity and power: two things that make many women uncomfortable and yet are fundamental to self-confidence."

Givhan wrote that Michelle Obama reminds women that they can make a place in their lives for vanity, and that "a little fashion can be supremely empowering."

Unfortunately, a little Rodeo Drive fashion would make me more impoverished than empowered.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obameter: Finally Holding Obama Accountable

Joshua Chaney — 2009-03-09T14:55:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, News, Media, Muskingum College

Barack Obama asked to be held accountable for his decisions -- and one newspaper has taken steps to do just that.

Staffers with the St. Petersburg Times pored through hundreds of pages of Obama's speeches, TV appearances, position papers and his campaign website. From ending the War in Iraq to purchasing a new puppy for his daughters, the team found over 500 promises - large or small - and created the Obameter on their new Web site, PolitiFact.com.

The Obameter grades each promise on one of six levels: no action, in the works, stalled, promise broken, compromise, promise kept. Obviously, most currently fall in the "no action" column.

The staff has individually numbered each promise and runs the list through continuous checks in order to update their status. So far, Obama has kept 16 promises, compromised 7, broken 2 and has had 2 stalled.

The two promises Obama has managed to break already, according to PolitiFact.com, are his promise to allow five days of public comment before signing bills and creation of a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs.

Another feature "meter" on the site is the Truth-O-Meter, which is described as a scorecard separating fact from fiction. It essentially takes statements by politicians of both parties and rates them on how true they really are.

Statements are also graded on different levels of how true they are including: true, mostly true, half true, barely true, false, pants on fire (uber false?).

The entire project, according to the site, is the help "find the truth in politics" and "assess the Obama presidency."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

A Look at Rush Limbaugh, and His Callers

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-09T02:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Media

It seems only appropriate that if Rush Limbaugh is going to accept the Republican Party's crown that the Democratic Party has handed him, more than just his devoted listeners should be paying attention to what he says every day.

And equally important as what he says are what his callers think, all 14 to 30 million of them.

Take Sharon, whose March 6 transcript with Limbaugh is titled on the talk-show host's website, "Our President Wants a Depression." Sharon, from northern Virginia, claims that Barack Obama is hoping for economic conditions circa 1929 because "last time we had a Great Depression, it resulted in a generation of Democrat power, and this time it looks like he's doing exact same thing that happened last time."

Limbaugh, always the devil's advocate, points out that there's a big difference between Obama and FDR -- specifically, "Obama is doing much more to create and cause economic collapse than FDR did."

The caller agrees. "I think it's definitely intentional," Sharon says. "Some of the things that are being done to drive market instability and uncertainty couldn't be anything but intentional."

The rest of the transcripts aren't too different, and some of them even come with photos of Obama standing next to his former "God Damn America" reverend, Jeremiah Wright. Listen to Mike, from Colorado, explain to Limbaugh why he feels like a born-again after listening to the conservative talk show:

Limbaugh, on March 5, is saying that the purpose of unions is not to work for employees' benefits, but instead, "the real purpose of a union is to elect Democrat candidates to every office possible" and to "collect dues that will then be donated to various Democrats, regardless -- regardless -- what they stand for. Just flood the elected offices of the country with Democrats. That's the purpose of unions today. Pure and simple."

Mike responds, "I just felt that, you know, after listening to you and watching what was happening with the economy, I thought, 'You know, he does have points,' and so we ... You know, I've listened to you more and even my wife's, you know, had change of heart as far as her viewpoints of the party that she thought was, you know, trying to help out, and even she's just dumbfounded with everything that's happened."

Limbaugh is signed to an eight-year radio contract that shovels over $400 million to him. (Maybe that's why he's not too happy about Obama's tax-the-rich plan.) His opinions are amplified across the country every weekday in three-hour bursts, to an audience that is 80 percent conservative.

But his website has all the goodies in archives, including headlines like, "Obama Disses Gordon Brown; Cozies Up to America's Enemies" and "Obama Wants America to Fail," conveniently placed above "The Definitions of Socialism."

Pretty powerful stuff. Jonathan Krohn may have big shoes to fill someday.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How The Press Can Remain Relevant Under Obama

Tony Romm — 2009-02-24T12:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Advise & Dissent, American University

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on Obama's media management style.

In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas.

Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."

To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.

Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.

Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.

Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.

That is, easy to see, but nonetheless unreasonable. The presidency and the press have always maintained a historically adversarial relationship, one that is contingent upon coexistence: the president depends on media to articulate policy, and reporters depend on presidents for information.That the two constantly struggle for control in that relationship is merely an inherent byproduct of political tradition and media evolution.

It is also why journalists should not expect anything more from the Obama administration. No matter how frequently he associates his presidency with a new "era of transparency," the executive branch's general need to rebuff external criticism and skepticism persists irrespective of which party or president controls the White House (and whatever rhetorical platitudes they offer voters on the path to get there). Openness is integral to democracy, -- and the journalists who claim to defend it -- to be sure. But an unfiltered relationship between the press and government is hardly as practical as some reporters would like to believe.

To stay relevant, journalists must adapt. From the news media's incremental lateralization -- the idea that news is now a many-to-many dialogue, not a one-to-many hierarchy -- has arisen the importance of truth gatekeeping, a task for which professional journalists have always been best suited. And in this occasionally cacophonous era of "social media" -- an area in which Obama's administration also possesses some advantages -- the value of news filters have increased exponentially.

As a result, Beltway journalists are still the most tactically and (surprisingly) financially equipped breed to build source networks, launch massive investigations and deliver enterprise reporting -- even if their poor short-term memories often cause them to forget this. Obama's hackneyed information strategy may complicate those tasks, make no mistake; but those "abuses" hardly constitute brash exceptions from an unfortunately historic -- yet democratically destructive -- political norm.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How the President Manages Those Pesky Reporters

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-24T11:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

Three days into his presidency, Barack Obama visited the press corps in the White House briefing room to introduce himself and trade a few pleasantries. What he didn't expect was that one of them would still be on the job.

One of Politico's top reporters, Jonathan Martin, approached Obama and asked why he was nominating a former lobbyist for a top defense post, when he had promised that no former lobbyists would work in his administration.

The president laughed it off. "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See, this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

The reporter tried again, repeating his question. Then Obama became agitated, placing his hand on Martin's shoulder and staring him down.

"All right, come on," the president glared. "We will be having a press conference, at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say 'hello' and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

But unfortunately for Obama, making friends with the men and women who will cover his presidency isn't a dream that most of them share. White House reporters have a very specific job: to tell the public what Obama is doing, what he isn't doing and what he's hiding. There's nothing friendly about it.

Granted, the D.C. journalism club mingles with their political sources almost to a fault. The term "Washington insider" now applies not only to policymakers and analysts, but to reporters who have roamed the halls of the Capitol for most of their professions.

Yet for all his promises of fresh government transparency, Obama, just coming off his first full presidential month, has repeatedly bucked reporters and dodged questions, casting a bleak forecast for what may be a trying time for Washington bureaus seeking the truth.

At Obama's first presidential press conference, on February 9, MSNBC's Chuck Todd confronted the president on a paradox in his stimulus plan. Todd noted that Obama's plan encourages increased consumer spending, but asked him if taxpayers should save money and pay down debt before they start putting money back into the economy. In short: Should the American people spend or save?

The president offered a long-winded answer that coursed through a variety of talking points, none of which answered the question. Ultimately, Americans were left with no more clarity than they had before the press conference began.

Yet even before Obama took the helm, he had treated reporters in a few instances as a pesky annoyance rather than the fourth-estate check on his power. In mid-December, Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormick tried to ask the president-elect at a press conference why his chief of staff gave the embattled Illinois governor a list of names of potential Senate replacements, possibly acting illegally. He was abruptly cut off.

"John, John, let me, let me, let me just cut you off, 'cos I don't want you to waste your question," Obama interrupted.

The awkward scene was reminiscent of a press conference a few weeks prior, in which a reporter asked Obama why he chose Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state just months after mocking her foreign-policy claims. Obama replied, "This is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign. No, I understand. And you're having fun."

Throughout the 2008 campaign and for at least four decades, conservatives hounded the mainstream media for harboring what they call a "liberal bias," implying that the journalists covering elections and the government are not objective, as their job requires, but instead favor Democrats. This bias, they say, leads to more flattering coverage of liberals and "negative" stories of their opponents.

Proof of such a theory may be hard to find, although in several surveys, many polled reporters claim to align their views liberally. (Whether this seeps into their stories is another question entirely.) Yet if political journalists are so liberal, why have they been confronting Obama whenever they can about the blunders of his infantile presidency - like Rod Blagojevich, Tom Daschle and Judd Gregg, to name a few men who have given the president a growing headache? And why have reporters forced him to evade their questions and instead turn on the press, like John McCain and Sarah Palin repeatedly did in the summer and fall?

Notably absent from the news organizations allowed to ask questions at Obama's first press conference were The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages consistently run conservatively, as well as TIME and Newsweek magazines. And notably present was The Huffington Post, the liberal website that banners more Obama-friendly news than any respected news organization. The president's decision to call on HuffPo's blogger was seen by some as an indication of new media's rise in the digital age, while others - notably the Journal's conservative editorial board - took offense.

If Obama continues to portray his press corps as a menace, the tones of their stories will darken. For example, just an hour after Obama refused to answer that question from Martin, the Politico reporter in the media room, Politico fronted a story on its website with the headline, "Obama flashes irritation in press room."

But he can appease them in other ways. At the February press conference, CNN's Ed Henry probably caught Obama off guard by asking him if he would lift the ban on photographs of soldiers' coffins coming back from war. At the time, Obama avoided an answer, saying, "We are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give you an answer now." Yet such a move would be incredibly popular among photojournalists and editors who want to visually show the human cost of war.

The president has other tools: He can restore more access to records available under the Freedom of Information Act that President Bush shrouded in secrecy. He can undo one of Bush's executive orders that barred the 1978 Presidential Records Act from making many documents public. He can reverse former Attorney General John Ashcroft's secrecy policy that agencies have the right to deny FOIA requests whenever they want, provided they have some sort of "legal basis."

Yet in the end, the press wants respect. Reporters want their questions answered - whether those answers fall in one political ideology or another. What they don't want is to be ridiculed, mocked or, maybe worst of all, ignored.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

These Right-Wingers Make Bush Look Like Nader

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-19T07:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Culture, Featured Stories, International News, Boston University

TOKYO -- Like that pre-calc nerd in high school, Japan doesn't really get out a lot. The government and the people are more concerned with what's happening inside their borders than anything else.

Which helps explain why Yasukuni Shrine, a controversial burial ground for a couple of million war dead including a handful of Japanese war criminals, is a focal point of nationalism.

During World War II, Japan's imperial army led bloody campaigns in China and other parts of Asia, resulting in tens of millions of deaths. Yet a few decades after the island nation surrendered, more than 1,000 soldiers who were charged as war criminals -- including 14 really terrible ones who are called "Class-A" criminals -- were secretly enshrined in the burial ground.

When this became public, China and Korea got pretty angry. Now, every time a Japanese official (like former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi) visits the shrine, East Asia flares up in wars of words. Japan's current leader, Taro Aso, said recently that he is considering a visit.

But that's not the only reason why Yasukuni is controversial. Walk 200 feet to the right of the shrine, and there's the Yushukan, a "history" museum erected by super-conservative, right-wing nationalists who want to set the record straight about Japan's wars -- at least, their version of the record.

Keep in mind that this group openly advocates -- and has succeeded in -- revising school textbooks to omit details such as the fact that during the war, the Japanese used Korean "comfort women" as sex slaves for their soldiers.

So when you think the United States has too many political extremists, think again. Whether they're on the right (like Sean Hannity) or the left (like Bill Maher), none of them have anything on the conservative Uyoku dantai.

It's also important to know that such extreme nationalists, while somewhat influential, are not very popular among most Japanese citizens. They represent a minority of Japanese people who are willing to bend the facts about what happened in one of Japan's darkest chapters. So, enter the Yushukan.

The first thing I saw before I even walked into the museum was a group of right-wingers huddled by their black trucks that bear the old imperial Japanese flag and blast "nationalist" music from loudspeakers. And the first thing I saw inside the museum, near the gift shop, was a row of hundreds of CDs burned with the same type of music.

It's common to hear American politicians defend attacks from their critics by saying that their opponents are practicing "revisionist history," misrepresenting their records. But that phrase has an entirely different and real meaning on the other side of the world.

What's inside the Yushukan is not as important as what's not inside. In 1937, Japan began massacring millions of Chinese civilians in Nanjing, nearly committing genocide. (Japan says its actions were a matter of self-defense.) Yet inside the museum, the only mention of the slaughter is a small panel barely three feet wide that refers to the "China Incident" and makes no mention of any conflict whatsoever.

Similarly conspicuous are the letters written by kamikaze pilots in the hours before they took off on their suicide missions. The letters appear only in Japanese, and the entire display has no English translation. It is one of the few parts of the museum with no English translation whatsoever. A Japanese friend of mine translated a part of one that read, "I'll do my best as one of the Japanese soldiers."

Robert Dujarric, an East Asian expert and former senior fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, stresses that Yasukuni Shrine is modeled after European values of monarchy and religion, and is really a tribute to Japan's modernization.

"The thing you have to know about Yasukuni is that it's not Japanese," Dujarric told a sociology class as a guest lecturer. The symbolism of honoring the emperor, he said, is a way for nationalists to say to the world, "We died for something."

The shrine and museum are only a small part of Japan. But they represent a significant mindset that still grips at least a few vocal leaders, and they are no doubt on the mind of the Obama administration as Hillary Clinton departs from her trip to Japan. Clinton asked Aso to be the first world leader to visit Barack Obama in the White House, a move that is almost certainly a favor she expects to be returned by committing the isolationist country to contributing more to global issues.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hey, What's Sarah Palin Up to These Days?

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-15T21:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University

It's been nearly a week since Sarah Palin has been in the national spotlight. How does the Wasilla Warrior intend to keep up her momentum for a 2012 presidential bid if she's flying below the radar like this? Don't worry, governor, we're here to help you out.

Manage Those Wolves!

A national hunting association is throwing its full support behind Palin to counter Ashley Judd's glitzy charges that the governor is unethical for encouraging wolf-hunting from helicopters. None the wiser, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance sent a letter to Palin saying that it wants to "publicly endorse your wolf management policy."

Needless to say, Palin probably wouldn't have gotten all this attention if she hadn't piggybacked onto the Republican ticket last year. In the anti-hunting campaign, Judd says in a video, "It's time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery."

Palin's spokesman, Bill McAllister, responded by saying, "I don't know that people necessarily base their views on these issues on what celebrities say."

Remember Those Clothes ...?

Defending her $150,000 Republican-bought wardrobe on the campaign trail, Palin famously said that her favorite store is in fact a small Anchorage boutique called Out of the Closet. Unfortunately for Palin -- and the owner of the store -- a Los Angeles chain with the same trademarked name threatened to sue the shop if it didn't change its title.

A spokesman for the foundation that runs the thrift chain said that if Palin had never mentioned the Alaska store in an interview, the issue "wouldn't have landed on the radar."

Ellen Arvold, the Anchorage owner, has reluctantly changed the name of the store to "Second Run," which can only be an omen for Palin's 2012 presidential aspirations.

Alaskan Actress

A number of Hollywood screenwriters are anxious to find a good-looking broad to play Palin on the silver screen -- at least, other than in a porno. The man who wrote "Milk" says he's attracted to the idea of it because he likes "politics as humor," and loves "great characters."

Meanwhile, "The Visitor" director Tom McCarthy said he'd like Bristol Palin's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, to steal the show: "This young man gets his girlfriend pregnant and ends up on the stage at the Republican convention. There's a dark comedy there somewhere. He was like a deer in the headlights."

Plan B

No, I'm not referring to how Palin isn't a fan of Planned Parenthood and abortion. I'm talking about what happens if her maverick style doesn't shore up enough support to get her self-appointed to the Senate next year or win the GOP primary in three. How will the Palins support themselves and any new additions to the family?

Have no fear: Patriarchy is back. Todd Palin raced to sixth place in the Iron Dog race this weekend, jockeying in blizzards for more than 41 hours. Bring home that frozen Alaskan bread, dude.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Henrietta Hughes Says She's Not Milking The System

Joshua Chaney — 2009-02-14T15:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Featured Stories, News, The Economy, Muskingum College

After a brief, empassioned plea and a kiss on the cheek, Henrietta Hughes was dubbed the face of the economic/housing crisis.

Hughes is the lady who begged President Obama for a house at a town hall meeting this week. Obama promised to help and he sort of did. A staffer gave her a card and suggested she go through more of the bureaucratic mess she had been complaining about.

Instead, Chene Thompson, the wife of Republican State Representative Nick Thompson, came to save the day, giving Hughes the keys to her home and inviting both her and her son to live there rent free.

Not suprisingly, her entire life history is now being combed over meticulously.

In her plea, Hughes mentioned that she had reached a dead end with local government assistance and no local charities would help.

Tanya Johnson, director of We Care Outreach Ministry, a faith-based organization in Fort Myers, says that just ain't so!

For the last month, Johnson claims she offered Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused.

"We've extended a lot of services to her," Johnson said.

D'oh!Hughes said that's just not so. Johnson wanted $400 per month starting immediately, Hughes said, and with an income limited to an $800 per month disability check, plus an insurance and storage bill, that just wasn't doable.

"Where was I going to get $400 a month to give to her if I got these expenses,"Hughes told WINK News in Florida. Johnson stood by her claim.

Before her famous plea to savior Barack, Hughes and her unemployed son lived in Rochester, N.Y., according to a 2004 article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

In the article republished by Michelle Malkin, Corey Hughes, son of Henrietta and an unemployed computer programmer, received free medical attention for issues regarding his thyroid.

"I can't even get a job at Wendy's," Corey Hughes told the Democrat and Chronicle, but "I feel good. I'm thankful to God."

He wouldn't reveal the salary at the temp job he was working but did say he had no health insurance.

From the Democrat and Chronicle article:

He helps take care of his mother, a breast cancer survivor who says eve with Medicaid, she hasn't seen a doctor in more than a year because she can't afford to pay any percentage not covered by her insurance plan. Having Medicaid disqualifies her from pro bono services.

"There isn't many doctors that will see you if you don't have insurance," says Henrietta Hughes, 56. "There's doctors, just out of the compassion and goodness of his heart, that will give his service or her service, and I'm very grateful to God."

The face of the current economic crisis has been receiving government assistance since 2004 -- before the economic crisis began.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

College Seniors Facing Tough Decisions

Joshua Sharp — 2009-02-07T17:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Small Campus, Big Story, Featured Stories, USC, The Economy, Recession on Campus

Bright Hall explores the far-reaching effects of the financial crisis on the youth and campuses of America. Click here for the full series.

A line of 50 students, dressed in business attire and clutching thin binders with carefully-prepared résumés, wove beyond the line of tiny booths at USC's annual career fair Thursday and stretched onto an adjacent cement walkway.

The students were waiting to talk with a single company. I didn't recognize the company's name, but it looked like a consulting or engineering firm. The scene was indicative of the overall mood among graduating seniors at the fair, which included roughly 115 companies (down from nearly 200 last year) and students of all majors. Appropriately, the normal Southern California sunshine temporarily gave way to looming dark clouds and strong winds, though rain didn't fall until later that night.

With the economy in swift decline and jobs disappearing at a disturbing rate, many college seniors -- myself included -- are casting as wide a net as possible in our job-hunting efforts.

And while college career fairs can often be nerve-wracking, with prospective employers scrutinizing every detail and anxious students over-analyzing every aspect of the event, there seemed to be a particular sense of urgency this year. Many of the employers had no positions available, instead recommending unpaid internships to get a foot in the door.

Surprisingly, some recruiters didn't have students lining up. They just stood in front of their booth, waiting. The busiest booths were for engineering, corporate consulting and information technology, though that could be partially attributable to USC's highly competitive students in each of those degree programs.

I visited a small handful of booths searching for openings in communication/press offices, but it was admittedly a slow grind. With job offers being retracted in some parts of the country, the only option is to blanket the planet with a catchy appeal and forget about being picky.

Stay tuned for more campus updates throughout the spring semester.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

MySpace Kicks Out Sex Offenders; They Head to Facebook

Megan Baker — 2009-02-04T12:33:00+00:00

Filed under: Featured Stories, St. John Fisher College, Media

MySpace had been under a lot of scrutiny for not doing enough to protect children from sexual predators, so they finally decided to do something about it. The site, known as "a place for friends," has made the decision to de-friend 90,000 registered sex offenders.

According to Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer for MySpace, MySpace had spent the last two years deleting accounts of people that were seen to cause problems on the site.

"The reality is there are 700,000-plus sex offenders living in the streets of America," Mr. Nigam said. "What we did was build cutting-edge technology to figure out where they might be living on the Internet and remove them from our site."

The company also reported that while the MySpace community grows 10 percent each year, there has been a 36 percent drop in the number of registered sex offenders creating profiles.

This is not the first time MySpace has "purged" such users. Back in 2007, the company found and removed 29,000 profiles of registered sex offenders using Sentinel SAFE, a database that matches user profiles to data on convicted sex offenders.

Techcrunch.com did some investigating with the help of John Cardillo, former New York City police officer and the CEO of Sentine, to see if these sex offenders went to Facebook. And it looks like they have.

Cardillo took the 90,000 sex offenders who were removed from MySpace and started looking for them on Facebook. According to Cardillo, "We found over 8,000 offenders on their site without much effort. My professional opinion is that the real number is 15 to 20 times that."

Cardiollo said that it would cost Facebook under $1 million to use Sentinal SAFE. It may, however, be even cheaper for Facebook to create its own screening software. This has been proposed in the past, but in light of Cardillo's findings, Facebook may not have anything worthwhile in place...yet.

Facebook claims this has not been an issue for users of the site. "We are glad to be able to report that we have not yet had to handle a case of a registered sex offender meeting a minor through Facebook. We are working hard to make sure it never happens," Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt.

He even went so far as calling Sentinel "irresponsible" for doing this stuff in a private manner.

"For a company that has a mission to keep kids safe, we find it irresponsible that they wouldn't share this with us. Or if not with us, how about law enforcement? This could have been an announcement that Sentinel and Facebook removed 8,000 potential sex offenders. We still don't have the information on who they are. If you are willing to share that with us, we will investigate immediately."

So in the meantime kids, make your profiles private and don't accept a friend request from anyone you don't know.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Worries Build for Iranians - Obama vs. Khatami

Parisa Saranj — 2009-02-04T07:43:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, International News, UMass

Barack Obama has begun his monumental work, and the excitement about his arrival in Washington is settling. People are now actually evaluating the President's action on issues like Guantanamo and the economy, though many are still glowing about the inauguration and the promise ahead.

For me, however, this influx of inspiration in American society is not a new feeling. I have tasted the sweet experience of having a hopeful president who talked beautifully and promised big things to his nation once before, starting in 1997 in Iran.

When I was a young teenager growing up in an Iran run by extremist clerics, freedom of speech, economic growth and even basic political freedoms were untouchable dreams. At the dawn of a new century, I saw hope in my country for the first time. A reformist (or an unknown clergy man, rather) named Mohammad Khatami won almost seventy percent of the votes for president in 1997. He also won the hearts of many young and old Iranian men and women by emphasizing their inclusion in the decision-making of the country. He too said, "We can."Well, the presidency of Khatami ended eight years later, in 2005, having fallen well short of his reformist campaign promises. He was ineffective primarily because his powers were checked by the supreme leader of Iran and other conservative elements with great control over he armed forces, judiciary system, state media, education, and other crucial areas.

Iranians have plenty of reasons to worry about the Obama administration. The potential for Iran-US military conflict still exists, and it is possible that Obama could drastically shift the perceptions of Iran in America. But the biggest reason may simply be the parallels with Khatami (which interests many others around the world as well). This does not mean that Iranian people doubt the capabilities of president Obama. They are just very attuned to signs of his power being restricted, though such limits will be to a different degree than the control exerted by Iranian religious and hard-line leaders. Certain issues, particularly economic policy and health care, are certain to see intense battles with corporations, political opponents, and many other significant powers.

As a person who is often subjected to racism and Islamophobia in this society, I have strong reasons to hope that the successes of the first African American president, one who has spoken so eloquently of a new, tolerant government, will mark an era of real transformation. I am still hopeful, but I am guarded. My fears for Obama remain because I've felt hope being wrenched away before.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Warns of Long Road Ahead, While Students Get Desperate

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-02T08:34:00+00:00

Filed under: Featured Stories, On Campus, National News, The Economy

The mantra of change during the 2008 election was so strong, and so frequent, that I think I forgot simply putting Barack Obama behind the desk of the Oval Office would not automatically turn the economy around.

Change [will] come. Maybe.

Obama gave a weekly address Saturday that was more mope than hope.

"Americans know that our economic recovery will take years -- not months," he said, according to a White House transcript of the speech.

He said the economy is probably going to get worse before it gets better. But it's pretty bad already, he admitted.

"Yesterday, we learned that our economy shrank by nearly 4 percent from October through December. That decline was the largest in over a quarter century, and it underscores the seriousness of the economic crisis that my administration found when we took office.

"Already the slowdown has cost us tens of thousands of jobs in January alone," he said.

It's the economy's affect on jobs that has college students worried, especially seniors, as May approaches.

Last week I went to a career fair at Notre Dame. There were more than 130 companies represented (many of which weren't even hiring at present), but far, far more students searching for jobs or internships. At one point, my friend turned to me and told me she could smell the desperation in the room. Another friend asked me if I thought it was just an urban legend that people get jobs from job fairs.

Will job fairs themselves soon become urban legends? Or worse, will we end up like the poor saps in CareerBuilder.com's hilarious Super Bowl ad?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Cindy McCain Apparently Doesn't Understand Journalism

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-22T08:53:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Media

With all the big news about Barack Obama's inaugurama, it's likely that a bit of recent comments from John McCain's wife passed under the radar of average newsies.

Cindy McCain, giving her first post-election interview to her daughter (which is bizarre in its own right), goes on the attack against The New York Times for giving her a "hard day" when it published a profile titled, "Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In."

Cindy McCain tells her daughter, "Another hard day was the day The New York Times published their profile on me. I had never spoken with the reporter who wrote the article. She contacted the kids that went to high school with my youngest daughter over the Internet, and as a parent, that was scary."

Yikes. That's a pretty harsh claim, implying that the Times reporter wrote an article about you without even contacting you to get your side of the story. But poor Mrs. McCain, like her husband, has underestimated the power of Google, which allows me to search for that story, which includes the following line about her:

"She has done relatively few solo events, grants interviews reluctantly - she declined to speak for this article - and in introducing her husband at events, she offers few of the heartwarming anecdotes that are the stock in trade of the political spouse."

Gulp.

Tough break for the McCains. It's pretty difficult to accuse a newspaper of having a "specific agenda," as Mrs. McCain does, without mentioning that the Times tried to get her opinion for the story to give her a fair chance to respond, you know, like responsible news organizations do.

Also questionable about Mrs. McCain's complaints is the fact that her interviewer -- her daughter, Meghan -- is lobbing her more softballs than a softball-lobbing machine. I won't even address the lack of objectivity or the incredibly obvious conflict of interest -- Meghan came out of her subject's womb, for god's sake. I'll just let the questions speak for themselves. Meghan, what's your first question for your mom?

"What is the best part about not being first lady?"

Talk about gotcha journalism. How is Cindy going to wiggle out of that hot-seater? Oh, I'm sorry -- Meghan, you had a follow-up?

"I mean, you must be relieved in some sense not to have all the people around anymore."

Not even a question!

"What was the worst hotel you ever stayed in?"

Personally, I'm glad she asked that one. When I travel through Middle America, I need to make sure my true trip adviser is the lavish wife of a senator.

OK, let's wrap up this interview session, Meghan. Did you want to maybe reflect on your role as a blogger?

Meghan: "Did I ever embarrass you?"

Cindy: "No, you did not. I was, and am, still very proud of you."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments