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.