A House Divided: The Bipartisan Political System in the US

As Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". And while this might be a logical thought, a divided house has been standing since 1776. America has had a bipartisan political system ever since its birth over 200 years ago. Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans, Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats, Democrats and Republicans. Other parties have risen and fallen, some gaining representatives, but rarely has there ever been a time in the United States when more than two parties dominated Congress. And right now is certainly not one of those times. While we might not be breaking into war over our differences like we did when Lincoln spoke these words, the country is nonetheless divided. And if the reactions to last night's State of the Union is any indication, the media is helping to fuel this two-party system.

Depending on where you get your internet news, you could read that the State of the Union address was an inspiring wake up call for America or a resounding, dull failure. Some reactions called it "messy, incoherent, disorganized, and most regrettably defiant". Others calimed it laid out a clear roadmap for the country's future. According to the left-center New York Times, Obama's speech last night was an effort to calm Democrats about the upcoming elections. The New York Times also credited Obama's accomplishments over the past year, after inheriting a mess from the previous administration. And overall, the Democrats' review of the speech was positive, citing it as "a reminder that [Obama] is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and the simple truth frankly spoken. It was a long time coming". The right-center news sources tended to be less receptive to the State of the Union address. Fox News called the speech "a sizable failure". While the Democrats applauded Obama's call for bipartisan cooperation, the Republicans denounced it claiming that Obama has been unreceptive to their ideas. Perhaps the most obvious sign of the country's divided political was during the address itself; as every few minutes the Democrats would rise in unison to applaud, while the Republicans remained seated, shaking their heads in amusement.

At the beginning of the address, President Omaba laid out the theme for the rest of the speech as well as his vision for the country's future: "So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared". Whether this call for cooperation comes true or proves to be just beautiful rhetoric is yet to be determined. But if the past and the media are any precedent, our partisan two-party system will continue as long as this divided house stands.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "Text: Obama’s State of the Union Address"

The New York Times "Where Clinton Turned Right, Obama Plowed Ahead"

CNN "Reaction to the State of the Union address"

Fox News "Obama's Sorry State of the Union Speech"

The New York TImes "The Second Year"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/hero/624x351/_MG_0474-hero.jpg

Twitter: Passing Fad or Revolutionary Media?

Let me start of by saying that I do not have a Twitter account, nor do I ever see myself having one. That being said before I started researching this topic I believed Twitter to be full of narcissistic people with way too much time on their hands. But there was something about Twitter I had to acknowledge: its explosive rate of growth. So I was surprised when a breaking news report on CNN.com reported that Twitter could be peaking out. So what does the future hold for Twitter? Is it a passing trend or powerful new form of information?

It can't be denied that the number of Twitter accounts has leveled off since last year, but that doesn't convey the entire story. While the number of accounts hasn't been growing, the amount of activity of those users has been increasing. Twitter has begun to spread to other countries, with 51% of its users American in December as opposed to 61% in June. Also the original astronomical growth rates make the plateau of users seems more dramatic.

But so what? So Twitter's growth has slowed down, and the people using it are now using it more than ever. It's still filled with meaningless posts that have little relevance to your life. True...well not entirely. As more athletes, scientists, and prominent people begin to tweet, more important information is becoming readily available. Twitter becomes better as more people use it and begin different dialogues. And everyone seems to be acknowledging its easy, flexible capabilities. Businesses, advertising agencies, universities, all of them are cashing in on the easy exchange of information available on Twitter.

I still don't like the idea of Twitter, but unlike my dislike of Myspace, I might have to suck it up and accept that it could have more staying power than some other internet fads that have popped up recently. It allows for people to report breaking news before even the networks know about it (if you've ever watched ESPN then you know this happens quite frequently). And for that very fact alone it is valuable. This is an age where incredible amounts of information and opinions are right at our fingertips. And with only 140 characters Twitter seems to be paving the way with bite sized chunks.

Works Cited:

CNN "Has Twitter Peaked?"

The New York Times "Why Twitter will Endure"

http://www.soloseo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/twitter-1.jpg

The Downfall of Democracy

The recent Supreme Court decision is reminiscent of the decisions passed during the Gilded Age that allowed big businesses (like Standard Oil) to dominant American politics

If this past week's Supreme Court decision did not cement the end of free choice and democracy, it at least dealt it a staggering blow. For hundreds of years, the Supreme Court has protected corporations. Mainly in the past, they have been defined as people and as such given the equal rights of a person. But by allowing companies to contribute an unlimited amount of money to campaigns, the very future of elections and democracy in this country will be changed (and not for the better).

When I heard about this monumental decision, I felt a nauseating pit growing in the center of my stomach. And this might not have been the case had I not recently read Chomsky and Herman's Propaganda Model, in particular the section on advertisements. Since newspapers and stations are incredibly expensive to operate, the power of advertising has grown tremendously. As the major form of revenue for media companies, advertisement agencies are able to dictate and control the media we receive and thus our definition of newsworthiness. This power is incredibly dangerous, as it shifts the essence of news from a civic service for the benefit of society to an instrument through which companies can bolster their profits.

And while it is a travesty that the five filters narrow the news and media we receive, it is even worse that soon they will be able to control the thing America prides itself on the most: democracy. With major corporations pulling in tens of billions of dollars a year, there is no doubt that they would be willing to drop a portion of that to ensure that candidates push forward their agendas. No longer will candidates be able to run on their values and leadership. Soon, the only people able to make it far in the elections will be the people with corporate backing. And by that point they will have been reduced from candidates to mere puppets of big business. And there is very little that other branches of the government can do about this decision. According to a recent Washington Post article, only a constitutional amendment would be able to overturn the effects of this decision. And if you've ever taken US history, you understand how daunting and difficult the challenge of proposing and ratifying an amendment is.

And apart from allowing domestic corporations to control America's elections, this decision will also allow foreign businesses to affect US politics. While foreign businesses are directly barred from exerting influence on US elections, they can use their subsidiary US companies to form political action committees. And through these committees, they can produce ads targeting or supporting candidates. If this turns out to be the case, Americans' beloved democracy could be influenced by places like Communist China.

In his majority opinion on the case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought...This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves". But by passing this decision and protecting companies as people under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has ensured that we will no longer be able to think for ourselves. Democracy as we know it is crumbling and soon not only our news will be controlled by corporations but also our politics. And if we allow that to happen, then the freedom that this country and the First Amendment were made to protect will be lost.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit"

The Washington Post "Campaign finance ruling leaves Democrats with few options"

The New York Times "The Court’s Blow to Democracy"

http://www.historyteacher.net/AHAP/images/BigBusiness.JPG

A Right to Information

In the wake of the recent alleged Chinese cyber attack on Google, I've been thinking a lot about information and the rights we have to it. Technology has allowed information to become readily available, but increasingly there have been efforts by governments to censor the media that its citizens view. A 2006 Business Week article named 13 countries that heavily censored the country's internet. As expected, right near the top of the list is China. But as censorship continues in these countries, this issue violates human rights and threatens to strain foreign relations.

When President Obama entered office last year, he vowed to begin a more conciliatory era between the US and China. And to many this seemed to imply that human rights issues would be left by the wayside. But in a recent speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called out many nations, including China, for violating internet freedoms: “Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber-attacks should face consequences and international condemnation”. But while this threat may be a light of hope for human rights activists, taking action against China is a complicated matter. Mainly, the Chinese government holds much the United States' debt. Also, the US hopes to gain China's support on major issues such as climate change.

But while the future remains complicated, Mrs. Clinton's speech sent a clear message to the world by calling out other nations (including US allies) for violating internet freedoms. As a world superpower, the US has the responsibility and duty to fight human rights violations in all its forms. Whether or not those countries are our allies or enemies is irrelevant when liberties are being violated. Once information is placed on the internet, it becomes part of the public domain and as such belongs to each and every person. While the future of the internet is uncertain, what is certain is that the US must be a leader in fighting internet censorship.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "China Says Criticism of Its Internet Policy Harms U.S. Ties"

The New York Times "Clinton Urges Global Response to Internet Attacks"

Business Week "Nations that Censor the Net"

http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/googlechina.jpg

The Importance of History and its Lack of Portrayal in the Media

So I'm pretty sure the two most volatile words on campus right now are Spike and Lee. Just muttering the name brings on a wave of emotions, opinions, and passionate (almost violent) discussions. But these differing opinions and ideas aren't what have me upset. What really has my blood boiling is what some uppers said during their discussion with Spike Lee. At multiple times, students stood up and questioned the importance of (what seems to them as irrelevant) history. The fact that PA students question something as vital and important as history shames and embarrasses the entire school and everything it strives for. While history may seem irrelevant to them, the truth is that every event today has its origins in the events of the past. I can think of no better example than Haiti, and the resulting devastation of last week's earthquake. The news has been filled with the struggling aid relief and the inability of Haiti to cope with this natural disaster. But as many articles present Haiti as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, few discuss the reasons behind such immense poverty.

Before Haiti was Haiti it was Saint-Domingue, one of the most lucrative French colonies in the West Indies. In 1791 the colony's slave population launched the world's only successful slave revolt and established the first black republic. But after that success, a series of events condemned Haiti to centuries of poverty and suffering. In 1825, France demanded Haiti to pay 150 million francs as compensation for the lost land. Haiti took enormous loans from several European countries and the United States in order to pay off this debt. The debt was eventually reduced to 60 million francs plus interest, but it wasn't until 1947 that Haiti paid it off. But the economic problems were not over. The absurd interest rates on the loans taken from other countries (including the USA) have built and built into a massive debt that to this day has not been paid off. Paying off these debts to foreign nations has crippled and stunted the Haitian economy that has never really been allowed to function normally. These historical events heavily contributed to Haiti's inability to provide disaster relief to its people.

Haiti's political system, like its economic, has been filled with tumultuous events. In the early 20th century, the United States occupied Haiti for two decades. Two of Haiti's most infamous rulers François Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude Duvalier controlled the country for three decades amid allegations of human rights abuses. Ever since then Haiti has alternated between military coups and civilian control.

Despite reading many articles on the recent earthquake, I had to search through the archives to find any references to Haiti's turbulent economic and political history. But why is this the case? Why does the media categorize history as unnewsworthy? Maybe the news wants to portray the United States as a valiant country coming to Haiti's rescue, as opposed to a superpower trying to clean up some of the mess it helped create. Maybe the drive for ratings has caused news stations to focus more on "breaking news" as opposed to relevant history. But either way, the history that led up to an event is crucial to understanding it and how to move forward in the future. And if the media won't spoon feed it to us then its our responsibility to search for it ourselves.

Works Cited:

The Washington Post "France asks Haiti's creditors: cancel debt quickly"

The New York Times "Haiti"

Flak and Fox News

America prides itself on being the land of the free. Her Bill of Rights preserves many of our most beloved liberties and serves as a standard for a democratic society. The 1st Amendment protects the freedom of the press, along with many other things. But as Chomsky and Herman's Propaganda model asserts, the press is not entirely free as five filters shape and influence the news we receive. But as I read this excerpt I couldn't help but wonder about the relationship between flak and the media. The concept makes perfect sense to me. The media relies and depends so heavily on the government, big businesses, etc for steady news that they have to submit to authority and backlash. But this filter seems to contradict an ongoing story that I read about a few months back: the battle between Fox News and the Obama Administration.

Despite Fox News' popularity and its slogan "Fair and Balanced", it has come under a lot of criticism for its supposed political bias. In 2004, Robert Greenwald Productions released "Outfoxed", a documentary that asserts that Fox News distorts the media to push a conservative agenda. But recently Fox News has been involved in a series of volleys with the Obama Administration. In an October, 2009 New York Times article, the White House communications director Anita Dunn was quoted as saying, "We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave". And while the White House has boycotted Fox News for its criticism of his policies (primarily healthcare reform), Fox News has not responded to this flak in a typical, expected manner. Instead they seem to relish this tension, as they claim it boasts their ratings.

So why isn't Fox News responding to flak in a typical manner? It comes from one of the most powerful (if not the most) entities in the world. And by feuding with the White House, they are losing a major source of credible, steady news. So none of this really makes sense. Unless you consider one of the other media filters: advertisements. As newspapers and channels become increasingly more expensive to operate, advertisements have gained more power. Advertisements are the major source of revenue for news companies, and as such they carry a lot of power. A LOT OF POWER. As Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model reports, "An audience gain or loss of one percentage point in the Nielsen ratings translated into a change in advertising revenue of from $80 to $100 million a year". The more ratings, the more advertisements, the more revenue for the company. So maybe thats why Fox News is unafraid to argue with the White House. Maybe they aren't afraid of losing their fan base over bad publicity. But is this really responsible journalism? Has the objective of journalism changed from unbiasedly presenting the truth to gaining ratings at any cost, even at the expense of your credibility and reputation? I hope not.

Works Cited:

"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Herman, Edward S., Chomsky, Noam.

New York Times "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying"

New York Times "How to Make a Guerrilla Documentary"

http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2009/07/bill-oreilly.jpg

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2009/01/20070309-BarackObama.jpg

Cinematic Progress

I'm not the type of person who buys into hype. I actually hadn't even heard of Avatar before December. The previews didn't really interest me and I planned on not seeing it. But as all these rumors circulated about its grandeur and the effect it will have on the cinematic experience, I decided I might as well go. Earlier during winter break I watched A Clockwork Orange, a film that is still messing with my mind. And after watching these two films I had a long (ongoing) thought over the definition of progress.

Avatar cost over $230 million to make. The director James Cameron held out for years so that the 3D technology for the movie would be available. And this isn't the 3D you remember from you're childhood (if you happened to grow up in 90's). There isn't that cheesy pop-out effect that's been used for the past couple decades. Instead the images seem almost to pop-in, creating the 3D effect. And while I was impressed with the effects, the story line seemed a little too...predictable. The movie has many themes that speak to issues that America deals with today and has dealt with in the past. The industrialized Earth with no reverence to nature destroys the forests in the name of business and profits. The battle between a Western culture and a native population reminds us of our past with Native Americans and our continuing obsession with Manifest Destiny. But none of these topics were really new or original to me. Anyone who has studied history or read an environmental article can easily pick up on these themes. And when people remember Avatar in the future, its going to be remembered for its groundbreaking effects and not its thought provoking plot.

A Clockwork Orange is not for the faint of heart nor the impressionable mind. The movie chronicles Alex and his "droogs" (Russian for friend) as they commit graphic and sadistic crimes they dub as ultra-violence. Eventually Alex is apprehended, experimentally rehabilitated, and ends with the reemergence of his true psychopathic will. The movie scrambles with you mind and its preconceived notions of morality, hero and villain, and free will and leaves you helplessly sorting through the mess. It inverts your ideas of a hero as you find yourself sympathizing with Alex, even as he commits incredibly inhuman crimes. You wonder if the ends justify the means, as the experimental procedure robs Alex of his free will and forces him to become a morally good person. Its the kind of movie that makes you so thoroughly confused that it takes days to really mull through everything you've just witnessed. The movie did such a powerful job of morally confusing its audience that in Britain multiple copycat crimes arose, resulting in a ban that lasted for decades.

So what is progress? As the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, more and more of the cinematic experience is the result of computer graphics and dazzling effects. The industry seems to be moving a direction that is more reliant on computers and less reliant on humans. It doesn't seem to farfetched to think that soon movies will only require human voiceovers, and then eventually no humans at all. But is that progress? I think that the real power of the arts is that it speaks to the truly human part of us, causing us to view or think about the world in a new way and thus allowing us to grow. And without that human element, the viewpoint the movies are supposed to invoke becomes fake and loses its value. So I guess I'll still take the thought provoking movie over the visual dazzling effects. And while the 3D effects of Avatar may be impressive, I have a little secret. I can see in 3D all the time. And its better and best of all its free.

Works Citied:

New York Times, "For All Its Success, Will ‘Avatar’ Change the Industry?"

New York Times, "British Test 19-Year Ban On 'Clockwork Orange'"

http://daily-math.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/avatar-movie-poster.jpg

http://bibliotecadefilme.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/a-clockwork-orange-poster.jpg

Sex Appeal: A Classic Marketing Scheme

Guess what? You've got a libido. And as it turns out I'm not the only one who knows it. Advertising agencies have taken advantage of this fact for years. Take some very attractive people, put them next to a product, and BAM! You've got a great commercial. Many of you may know this tactic and think yourself immune to such a primitive marketing strategy. But thats the power of it. It is so primitive. And as such it speaks to the primitive side of us. You might be slightly offended by such vulgar and unrefined methods to sell you a product. But your id, the baser part of the mind interested only in instant gratification, slobbers over such commercials. You see these gorgeous models and you subconsciously associate the product with them, no matter how unrelated they might be. Your subconscious thinks that by buying the product, you will either become more like the beautiful people or be able to attract them. These strategies work well, and as a result companies continue to exploit them (and us).

Carl's Junior's Paris Hilton Commercial

Pine Sol Commercial

Take these two videos as examples. If you've got a pulse, chances are its beating a little more quickly after watching one of these commercials. I know what you're thinking. These are some of the most absurd commercials I have ever seen in my life. And you're right. Paris Hilton probably never eats Carl's Jr hamburgers (or much else for that matter). And shirtless muscular men are probably one of the last things you would associate with Pine Sol. Until now. If the commercial is sexy enough and memorable enough, then that image will permanently be associated with that product. After airing this ad in 2005, Carl's Jr saw a 2% sales increase. Modest you might say, and you would be right. But the branding power and publicity the commercial gave Carl's Jr was much more astounding. After its release, the commercial incited a backlash for its...not so subtle (and not so subliminal) messages. But this may not have been a bad thing. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And for Carl's Jr, a relatively small West Coast fast food chain competing with the giants McDonald's and Burger King, this fact could not be more true. Now when hungry guys think of Carl's Jr, they think of the Paris Hilton commercial. And thats a powerful connection for a company to make in its target audience. And thats why these commercials continue to appear.

As far as the Pine Sol commercial goes, its just as ridiculous. But apparently it has a little more strategy and reason behind it than its Carl's Jr counterpart. According to Mr. Mercier, a brand manager for Pine Sol, the commercial tries to borrow themes that have worked for another scent industry: “What we were trying to do is play on the fantasy of perfume ads,” which also have strong romance elements". It is too early to tell whether or not this commercial will work for Pine Sol, but they are confident enough that the company spent $10.8 million on advertising during the first half of 2009. And if precedent is any indicator (which it usually is) it might not be a bad strategy to spend money on a sexual appealing commercial.

We are all human. We cannot escape that fact. Sexual advertising has affected all of us at some point during our lives (whether or not we admit it is another thing). I personally am not afraid to admit it. After watching the Carl's Jr ad, I felt a slight urge to buy a hamburger (and I don't even eat beef). And while I can tell you with complete confidence that this commercial will not make me go out and eat beef, I can tell you that I will remember this commercial for a long time. If not just for its strong sexual overtones, but for its sheer absurdity. But for whatever reason it is secure in my memory, and with that the advertisement has accomplished its goal. It has ensured that I will not forget the product or at the very least the brand and that is the ultimate goal of any advertisement. These are just a few examples out of millions, and I can guarantee there are more to come. And there are strong reasons to bank on that. After all, sex sells.

The Death of Network T.V.

ABC, CBS, and NBC. For years these networks dominated television from late night shows like The Tonight Show to dramas like ER. But with the advent of cable and satellite tv, network stations saw their vice grip on the American public falter. In recent years wildly popular show like Grey's Anatomy, 30 Rock, The Office and others have seemed to indicate a resurgence in network tv ratings. But despite these popular programs, ratings as a whole for network stations continue to drop. Someone is killing network tv, and in this modern age of technology, Tivo, Hulu, On Demand, and iTunes are holding the smoking gun.

ABC, CBS, and NBC saw an incredible rise from the 1950's up until the late 1970's. But ever since then, their ratings have been steadily declining. The first blow that contributed to their decline was original programming from Cable Television that started in the early 1970's. Satellite tv also contributed to network television's decline when it arrived in America in 1975. As opposed to network stations, cable channels are much more specialized and thus are able to target a specific audience. Also the looser restrictions of cable's content contribute to their popularity.

Even though cable and satellite tv have contributed to the decline of network television, modern alternatives to tv have guaranteed its death. The invention of Tivo singlehandedly did away with the need to watch live tv. Instead of planning your schedule around your favorite shows, you can simply record them and watch them at your own convenience. Hulu and On Demand allow you to choose from hundreds of shows and movies, many of them for free. And Itunes is yet another method to get shows and movies without having to watch tv.

I can't remember the last time I planned to watch a show on network tv. Despite the fact that I watch many of their shows, the act of scheduling your night around a new episode of your favorite show has become obsolete. Why would you watch a show on tv at a scheduled time when you can easily watch it whenever you want? As time goes on, network stations will continue to decline as more and more convenient viewing options become available.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/broadcast-network-viewers-through-2008.gif

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/how-network-tv-brought-america-together/?scp=2&sq=network%20tv&st=cse

The Difference Between Importance and Entertainment

I am awed by the digital age we live in and their amazing capabilities. From "smart phones" to computers to Youtube and beyond, there are more ways than ever to hear others' opinions and keep up with current events...Or not. All too often we use these incredible tools not to expand our minds but to preoccupy them. And this need for constant entertainment has affected not only our own worlds, but also the media that presents it to us.

We live in a time where we have a constant need for immediate gratification. You see it everywhere around campus. People sitting at lunch tables playing Peggle on their iphones, kids walking to class with massive headphones plugged into their ipods, and students watching Youtube for hours while their essay's deadline only draws closer. We use all of these tools to satisfy our need for entertainment, lest we fall pray to that doom of dooms: boredom. All of these options for entertainment allow us to be constantly entertained, but typically at the cost of importance and relevance.

The media has succumbed to our need for entertainment. Now that T.V.'s have hundreds upon hundreds of channels, a news station airing a boring, although relevant, story can't hope to compete with this evenings SportsCenter or E! News. As a result, news sources must dip their standards to accommodate our lacking attention spans and boost their ratings. I have no idea who represents me in Congress or what is in the health care reform bill, even though these will have a huge effect on the rest of my life. But I can tell you for a fact that tens of millions of people knew about Michael Jackson's death within a few hours. It even took an attempted terrorist attack to knock the Tiger Woods Scandal from the front of newspapers. And while these stories may be entertaining, they have little relevance or importance to our lives.

The media and its audience communicate on a two way street. The majority demand entertainment instead of relevance and the media provides it. But as the media does this, it shapes our understanding of what is "news worthy" and what we expect from the media. And if we truly want to find the relevant and important than we will have to rely upon ourselves to search for it rather than the media to easily provide it.

New York Times.com Homepage

Limited News Interaction

A distrust of news companies and a disinterest in their presentation and content has led me to dissociate with typical news sources and seek and interact with only media that interests me. I believe that no news source can provide the definitive truth on any event they are reporting and that every company is inclined to some bias or agenda. With a myriad of controversies over credibility and bias ranging from The New York Times to Fox News, I have found myself in confusion over who to trust and with a slight dislike of news sources. I have even dissociated myself from local news channels, as I find much of their reports include acts of violence and tragedy. My daily intake of global news extends no deeper than scanning the headlines of CNN.com as it appears on my homepage. My interests tend to be mainly focused on sports, rock climbing, and music. I watch ESPN to stay in touch with recent developments and to follow my favorite teams. I subscribe to Rock and Ice magazine, which exposes me to information on different elements of the climbing world. I never listen to the radio and instead only focus on my favorite bands and hear about new music through friends and word of mouth. Due to my distrust and confusion of media sources and my limited, focused interaction with the media I have little exposure to world events and developments. And from this narrow focus I feel that the media does not press on me or sell me anything that I am not already interested in.