This blog examines two news stories, and focusses on the journalist's use of sourcing within their reporting.

**The first story I analyzed was titled "Trial under way in New York immigrant killing," written by Adriana Hauser, writer and contributor for CNN outlines the killing of Marcelo Lucero, a 37 year old Ecuadorian immigrant. Lucero was killed around midnight while walking by the Patchogue train station in Patchogue, NY in November of 2008. Seven teenagers from Patchogue high school were targeting hispanic immigrants, and only one person, Jeffrey Conroy, 19, was convicted of manslaughter as a hate crime. Given that the trial was back in November of 2008, there have been various reports, and news stories on the incident, and the implications of murder for the Lucero family, as well as the family of the verdict, (19 year Jeffrey Conroy) who stabbed Marcelo Lucero in the chest during a street fight.

The website for the source of the story can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/19/new.york.immigrant.murder/index.html

1) Prosecutors

-"Prosecutors say 19-year-old Jeffrey Conroy and six friends targeted Latinos to assault in 2008."

-"Prosecutors say the teens targeted Latinos as part of a sport they called 'beaner-hopping.'"

(paraphrased)

The prosecutors described in the story are from government, and are directly linked to the case because they are working on it.

2) Spokesman for victim's family

-"'We're looking to make sure that what happened in Patchogue doesn't happen again in any part of

this country,' said Fernando Mateo, a spokesman for Lucero's family."

(direct quote)

The person quoted above is a regular citizen, and is valuable to the story, in that the person is directly linked to the story, and is family to the homicide victim.

3) Suffolk county DA's office

-"Four of the seven defendants have pleaded guilty to various charges and may testify against Conroy,

the Suffolk County District Attorney's office said in a statement."

(paraphrased)

This is paraphrased, so it is quite possible that some content was left out that could've been crucial to the overall 'impression' of the message to the audience. However, Suffolk county was the geographic region where the murder took place, and the District Attorney did send out a press release containing the aforementioned information.

b) Justice Robert W. Doyle

-"In a decision to consolidate the charges related to the attacks, Justice Robert W. Doyle noted that

'the similarities between the separate alleged crimes is striking, the motivation for the attacks is

the same, and the victims are all Hispanic and were attacked in the same general vicinity in Suffolk

County,' the district attorney's statement said."

(direct quote)

4) Southern Poverty Law Center

-"A recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that Latinos in Suffolk County have

lived in an environment of intolerance and violence directed at them. The atmosphere of intolerance

is stoked in part by anti-immigrant groups, an indifferent police department and county leaders,

according to the report."

-"The law center, which researches and keeps tabs on hate groups, became interested in the Long

Island county after Lucero's death."

-"After four months of research in Suffolk County that included interviews with more than 70 Latino

immigrants, 30 local religious leaders and other community leaders, the law center said it found a

pattern of ethnic intolerance going back 10 years."

-"Low-level harassment of Latinos in Suffolk County is common, the report said."

(paraphrased)

-"'They are regularly taunted, spit upon and pelted with apples, full soda cans, beer bottles and

other projectiles,' the report said."

(direct quote)

-"Latino residents riding bikes have been run off the road, and others have been beaten with

baseball bats or shot at with BB guns, the report said."

(paraphrased)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a "think tank" organization, however, I'm not sure how pertinent the information is to the going-ons of the case as a whole. i.e. yes it is definitely valid information, some of the quotes sounded opinionated at best, and were lacking in valid statistical, (quantifiable) information/statistics. For example, "Low-level harassment of Latinos in Suffolk County is common," leaves a lot of room for debate, depending on which organization the reporter might be interviewing, quoting, etc.

**The second story, "Teen guilty of hate crime in NY immigrant's death," focuses on the outcome of the murder trial: Jeffrey Conroy was found guilty of manslaughter as a hate crime but was acquitted of murder.

This story is more of a "follow-up" from the previous story, however, it reveals some of the same information as the CNN news story, yet provides more hard facts. Subsequently, the story does focus on some sources that may (or may not) be appropriate, and/or relevant to the entirety of the story as a whole.

The following story was published on April 14th, 2010, by Frank Eltman, writer for the Associated Press.

The website the article was obtained from is listed below:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HATE_CRIME_STABBING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-04-14-11-52-43

sources:

1) Prosecutors

"Prosecutors say Lucero's killing was the culmination of a campaign of violence against Hispanics in an avocation Conroy and his friends called 'beaner-hopping' or 'Mexican hopping.'"

paraphrased, direct quotation of individual terms

2) Conero (defendant)

"Conroy, a three-sport athlete at Patchogue-Medford High School, admitted to police he was responsible for the stabbing but took the witness stand last week to say he had taken the blame for one of his co-defendants"

paraphrased

3) Prosecutors (again!)

"Prosecutors say many Hispanics attacked in the days before Lucero's killing were afraid to report the crimes to police, fearing questions about their immigration status. The teenagers, she said, were aware of that trepidation and took advantage of their victims' fears by operating with impunity."

"Lucero, 37, was walking with a friend near the Patchogue train station around midnight when they were confronted by the teenagers, who prosecutors say were strolling around town looking for targets."

"The teens began yelling ethnic slurs and approached the men, authorities say. One of the teens punched Lucero in the face, and within moments, Lucero and his friend were swinging their belts in self-defense, prosecutors say."

"After Conroy was hit in the head with Lucero's belt, he lost his temper and stabbed the man in the chest, prosecutors say."

(paraphrased)

4) Jurors

"Three of four alternate jurors who were released from duty as deliberations began said they were inclined to convict Conroy at least of manslaughter. Some also said Conroy hurt his case by implicating another teen at the end of his trial."

(paraphrased)

a) Cathy Tidmarsh

"'He said nothing to change my mind. I did not believe the story that someone else did it after 17 months,' said Cathy Tidmarsh, one alternate."

direct quote

b) Cosmos Hionidis

"Another, Cosmos Hionidis, said Conroy 'would have been better off not going on that stand and giving us that story.'"

(direct quote)

The crisis in Greece's budget deficit has been a test of the economic stability of the European Union during difficult times, and the discussion over this week's upcoming EU summit in Brussels has centered on the crisis and brought to light clear division within the Union. During last week's summit, Greek prime minister George Papandreou seemed to explicitly request a possible rescue plan from European leaders, threatening to turn to the International Money Fund otherwise, which many would see as representing a failure of Europe's single currency. Papandreou told leaders in Brussels on Thursday "We are expecting this from the summit next week."

The message seemed clear enough, and European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso called for leaders to use the upcoming week's meeting to agree on a package of loans that could be put in place if Greece decided their current budget cuts (which have resulted in strikes and union protests) were failing to contain their ballooning debt. Barroso urged that simply having a set plan would itself reduce volatility in the market by providing clarity.

However, in a German radio interview, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel completely opposed both leaders, claiming that Greece was in no immediate economic danger and that aid for them would not be a topic at the summit. She instead argued that speculation over the possible bailout was the primary cause of recent market volatility.

"I don't see that Greece needs money at the moment and the Greek government has confirmed that. That's why I'd urge us not to stir up turbulence in the markets by raising false expectations for Thursday's council meeting,"

Merkel's statement is arguably about protecting the markets stability and interest in order to dissolve any uncertainty among citizens of the European Union, (and Germany specifically), and as such, her reasoning is somewhat valid. However, Papandreou's request for a specific plan for economic stability to calm the current governmental turbulence in Greece seem to point to an issue that cannot be simply swept under the table. Merkel seems to simply be ignoring a problem that is directly related to her own countries' economic strength and stability, and furthermore, the strength, (or otherwise dismemberment), of the EU as a whole.

Merkel's rationale may better be understood through fear's of a region-wide comic collapse as the euro has recently dropped to $1.35. Merkel has argued that a Greek bailout could set a dangerous precedent for the entirety of the EU, and during her radio interview, she again postulated the notion that countries who repeatedly broke, or hindered the EU's stability and growth pact did have the potential to be expelled from the organization. In the global economic downturn, it is difficult to maintain strong ties between nations, when the capital is simply inexistent. Although it is evident that Greek desperately needs help to maintain its nation, stronger socioeconomic and political ties need to be strengthened between countries currently existing in the European Union.

** Information obtained from the online journal of "The Guardian" a periodical published in the U.K.

www.theguardian.co.uk/business/2010

Framing: CNN on Congressional Elect: Sean Duffy

This blog will focus primarily on framing; which, (in a nutshell) is the course of action undertaken by mainstream media journalists to pro port an issue as being relevant, and newsworthy enough to disseminate to the public. However, the most negative implication of framing is the decisions of journalists to 'frame' content, and essentially, shape public opinion.... in other words, to tell American viewers what to think, and why they should think about something period.

Who's to blame? No one I suppose- Although it is easy to simply blame mainstream media outlets such as FoxNews and CNN, is it not essential that we, as citizens of this country, take a hard look in the mirror, and decide that maybe, for once, we should delve further into the widespread spectrum of information that is available to all of us- that we should elect to educate ourselves as individuals, in order to be better armed for political discourse, and furthermore, to ensure that we aren't just being fed a bunch of bologna all of the time? I digress...

On that note, I will be discussing the current frame of pseudo-celebrity politician, Sean Duffy, and his 'place' in modern politics. Except, I won't be discussing... merely analyzing the discussion of the ::ahem:: "frame" currently taking place on this very pertinent topic of relevance to all of us normal folks' out there.

One question often asked when analyzing a media 'frame' is:

Who are the main spokespeople on a particular topic, and how are they being quoted?

CNN's Charles Riley wrote a section, "Palin targets Obey in Wisconsin" where he touches base on the fact that Sarah Palin marked the one-year anniversary of Pres. Obama's signing of the stimulus bill by employing her very own Sarah-Palin-Cult followers to donate green to Wisconsin Republican Sean Duffy-

.... aka... the former MTV reality star...

*** Ok I'll stop with my opinions here though--- keep reading! :)

Obviously enough, Sarah Palin is being framed in this story as the main spokesperson on this particular topic, or perhaps, the easiest 'political character' to attack in the context of the article.

So, here's an extremely condensed version of Charles Riley's article:

Sarah Palin wants (Rep) Sean Duffy to win because she is not a proponent of David Obey (Dem) who is up for reelection in Congress this year. In this particular column however, Riley is certainly creating, (or possibly perpetuating) a frame that is loosely connected to the picture that's often painted of Sarah Palin by many leftist thinkers, as seemingly uneducated, aloof, and dramatic.

That being said, Sarah Palin is used in this piece to possibly solidify the columnist's opinion because

A.) she is used in the context of the upcoming election, (which is really unimportant, considering that she has absolutely no influence on the actual electoral procedures,) and

B.) she is quoted in Charles Riley's online column as stating the following:

" In this election year, we'll see many darling Davids take on entrenched Goliaths."

The columnist himself writes about the quote, while stating the following:

"While never mentioning Obey by name, Palin alludes to him as a "liberal Goliath who's been in Congress over 40 years now."

Furthermore, Riley finishes the column by stating:

"Before facing off against Obey, Duffy will have to beat candidate Dan Mielke in the Republican primary...Duffy is serving his fourth term as district attorney for Ashland County. He became known nationally for appearing as a cast member on MTV's 'The Real World.' "

Although one might say it is important to know that Sarah Palin is asking people to donate money to the young Republican, is it really the main issue we should be focusing on? What would Sean Duffy bring to Congress? What policies and issues is he focusing on, and what will he do to help/hinder the progression of American politics?

These are the topics that should be considered, explored, and reported on- the fact that Sarah Palin was the focal point of CNN's Charles Riley's online piece is somewhat abhorrent, considering the issues that are directly related to it(healthcare, employment, retirement, education, and the like.)

Mr. Riley, why did you not address ANY concerns that people might have with the possible change in Congressional seats? What implications will that have for the American people?

As I was reading posts that fellow citizens had written in response to the story, it was evident that most people didn't actually care about Sarah Palin's actions at all.

In fact, most of them had many of the same questions I did-- essentially--

Why don't we know more about this? Why are certain, imminent topics being completely... ignored?

In essence, I believe that this story was a "Sarah Palin" frame, in that she is (more often than not) covered in media. period. The degree of coverage she receives drastically varies depending on the organization 'framing' her, however, I think I'm not alone in believing that this frame should be inexistent at best. When I think "hmm... I wonder where I will gather more insightful information about political news, and events," typically, Sarah Palin isn't the first political 'figure' that pops into mind- Additionally, it is apparent that this is a frame based on the fact that Sarah Palin is the ONLY person quoted. There are no academic experts, policymakers, or (other) political advocates that are even quoted within the piece, so there is obviously zero neutrality here, and 100% media bias. And no. Not "liberal media bias," just pure, unadulterated laziness, in lacking to support a political coverage story with more concrete evidence, and pertinent facts.

President Obama: National Prayer Breakfast.... Maybe Just A Little Convoluted?

I will begin to discuss the criticism that President Obama is facing, and how those criticisms manifested during the National Prayer Breakfast, that took place February 4th.

Two mainstream media outlets, CNN.com, and the ::ahem:: "fair and balanced" FoxNews.com

It is a well known fact that both of these outlets are likely to drastically differ in their coverage of political topics- but this time, even CNN couldn't quite push the story in a positive light.

The National Prayer Breakfast took place in Washington D.C., where President Obama condemned Uganda's legislation for a proposed anti-gay bill, which would have serious implications for homosexual men living in Uganda.

As quoted by CNN.com:

"the measure would punish sexual activity between persons of the same sex with long jail terms or death."

Obama still attended the Breakfast, which was widely criticized by gay and civil rights activists, and similarly, was sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, (which has been associated with efforts to pass the anti-sodomy law!!) umm.... hello?

The hypocrisy of the entire event falls into a bit of a grey area, while FOXNEWS.com is quoted as saying:

"If you’ve ever heard this president discuss faith then you know that he is incredibly uneasy with the themes and constructs of American belief, and often manages to slight the faithful just as he’s awkwardly trying to address them."

I'm not one to ever readily agree with foxnews but I do have to say, S.E. Cupps, (writer for this specific article on foxnews.com) might just be on to something. Obama has postulated some very 'vague,' albeit promising efforts to extend legislation to gays, (gay rights, marriage, etc.) However, is it not a bit odd....that now he's in office, he has not done a whole lot to push any gay legislation, and is contradicting himself left and right... (no pun intended) ;o)

It seems that Obama is trying a little too hard to keep up the celebrity/presidential PR facade, rather than focusing on real issues.... maybe he is a little too focused on semantics and political correctness- Oddly enough though, he condemns those against gay rights, while attending a breakfast that is essentially sponsored by an anti-gay Christian activist group? It seems like something is awry here. Foxnews did their usual spinning by making a few unnecessary jabs at the Pres- (which is completely expected) but they did slide in a little more factual information than the story CNN covered.

The article, obtained from CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/04/obama.prayer/index.html?iref=allsearch

Is factual in nature... but extremely vague. Sources are often 'unnamed' in the article, and it seems that a lot of information was simply.... left out? It is not a leap to ascertain that Republicans and Democrats alike are ready to let politics be politics, and let religion be a personal choice- (or maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better.)

But still...

Another relatively fishy take on the entire breakfast ordeal was Obama's personal response to religion- he says he is pro-gay, and often praises atheists and the like for their beliefs, but is it not a slap in the face to those that legitimately believed in him, and that he would finally be the main proponent behind civil rights for all people?

I think that Obama needs to hire a new 'press secretary,' i.e. he needs better PR, because you can only talk out of both sides of your mouth for so long. Actions speak louder than words!

I think both articles, and media vehicles actually had valid points, but I think the article by fox news addressed the more personal concerns that many Americans, (especially Gay Americans, and people who are generally concerned with human rights and equality) are having about the convoluted mess that the breakfast actually turned out to be.

Ps: Urban economic meeting? ..... with Al Sharpton? LOL

Yeah... like he's a balanced political figure- sorry but ... come on America- let's try to get down to some important issues, address them, and plan for a better America where everyone has equal rights, and everyone is afforded medical care. I think both articles addressed the implications of the breakfast, we will see what legislation actually takes place in Uganda.

Critique, Comments, and Insights: Obama's State of The Union Address

I will begin this post by first explaining that I, as an individual, do not claim to be a democrat, a republican, or "middle of the road." I can not define my own political beliefs, and refuse to pigeonhole myself, (along with my thoughts, ideals, and expectations,) by merely 'choosing' one party or another, based only on personalities and generalized ideas as accepted or unaccepted by the only two parties one may choose from in the United States. That being said, I will say that I was very excited for Obama to become our President. I thought that his ideas, goals, and plans for the country, (healthcare reform, lower taxes, etc.) were all wonderful... thoughts.

I, admittedly did jump on the Obama band wagon though, and like many other fellow citizens, was ambivalent, yet hopeful for the future. The economic turmoil, socialized healthcare, and the Administration's future plans for America's action in the middle east were the main topics of discussion during Obama's State of the Union Address. I believe that although these critical issues were addressed, there was still confusion as to what specific plans would be put in place to resolve the deep-seeded issues that all Americans are facing, such as the immanency of rebuilding the global economy, and equally important, how to slowly, but surely get our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like.

I think that one of the most highly regarded intellectuals of our time, (and one of my personal heroes, Naom Chompsky,) probed even deeper, telling the press the intricacies of the Administration's actions, and the implications of those actions on the people living, (better yet-the people fighting for survival and peace in the middle east.)

In the following excerpt from Naom Chompsky; "Chompsky: No Change Coming with Obama,"

he outlines how President Obama's policies are not much different from his predecessor.

- Obtained from: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090124.htm

** I want to make sure everyone reading this blog realizes that the conversation was obtained from Chompsky's website itself, and has nothing to do with the primary source from which the interview was originally conducted.

My thoughts, views, and personal beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with pressTV, and do not reflect their views in any way.

Chomsky: No change coming with Obama Noam Chomsky interviewed by Afshin Rattansi Press TV, January 24, 2009

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, we better start with Pakistan. The White House not commenting on the killings of people [in cross-border drone attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan]. Richard Holbrooke, someone whom you've written about in the context of Yugoslavia, is the man [President Barack] Obama has chosen to solve the situation. Chomsky: Well, it was pretty clear that Obama would accept the Bush doctrine that the United States can bomb Pakistan freely, and there have been many case which are quite serious..... The first message of the Pakistani government to General [David] Petraeus, the American General when he took command of the region was that they did not want any more bombings in Pakistan. Actually, the first message to the new Obama administration by President [Hamid] Karzai of Afghanistan was the same, that he wanted no more bombings. He also said that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of the foreign troops, US and other troops, from Afghanistan. That was of course just ignored. *Although this interview is only an opinion, it is factual in its context, and outlines only some of the problems that Americans aren't even aware of, due in part to the biases and agendas of the media, and the press as a whole. Additionally, Peter Schliff attacked Obama's State of the Union Address, stating that his plan to revive the economy through credit would never work, because " liabilities precede assets." I'm trying to view America as a glass that is half-full. Although its quite hard when you're a realist because no matter if the glass is half-full or half-empty- someone's gonna have to fill the damn cup either way. Let's hope Obama can fill our cup of America with money, jobs, and healthcare for every person calling themselves an American- rather than merely delivering poignant, pseudo witty speeches. *(Which, by the way, are creepily reminiscent of Germany in the 1930's, where people were so desperate for jobs, money, and overall improvement within their lives, that they would listen to anyone who seemed politically powerful, dedicated, and well-spoken enough to do the job. seemingly.)