Executive Action?

On Thursday night, President Obama gave a speech about his plan for immigration reform. His plan? To allow immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 5 years or more, have children who are citizens of the U.S., have no criminal record, and are willing to pay taxes.  In his speech he said,

“What I’m describing is accountability-a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”

We can all agree, our borders need to be secured, but this plan in particular isn’t well liked by Congress. In fact, President Obama is planning on using Executive Action to get his bill passed. Congressional Republicans are already making plans to stop Obama from using this Executive Action as they see it as a gross misuse of power. They also aren’t too happy about his executive changes to the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare.

I have a hard time with this idea of Executive  Action. It seems the President uses this action when he disagrees with Congress or finds the system too slow. This shines a spotlight on the dysfunctional relationship between Congress and the President.

A senior policy analyst, Elizabeth Slattery had a very interesting point when she said, that President Obama once made a comment that President Bush was trying to bring more power into the executive branch and limit Congress, he promised to bring change…I have to agree with Ms. Slattery, I’m not seeing much change.  I appreciate the media’s coverage on this topic. I have seen equal coverage from both sides on this issue, not only about immigration reform but also on Executive Action. From this class, I have learned much about the relationship the government and the media hold, their constant influence on one another and the real power the media has in shaping opinion and ideas. It will be interesting to see how coverage will progress on this issue. 

Keep it SEALed

On Thursday, The Washington Post published a story about former Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill. O’Neill officially confirmed he was the one that shot Osama bin Laden back in 2011. Previously, O’Neill spoke to Esquire magazine but stayed anonymous. He chose to confirm his identity in his relation to the shooting after he was mentioned on a military blog without his permission. Since his reveal, he’s received a mostly positive response, mainly from families who lost their loved ones on 9/11. However, O’Neill has also received very negative responses, specifically from the military. The Navy SEALs have strict policy about seeking attention for your service. But is that what O’Neill was doing? Seeking attention? Or was he simply confirming his role after being revealed in a blog without his consent?  The commander and master chief of the Navy Special Warfare Command said this in response to the controversy…

“A critical tenet of their profession is to not advertise the nature of my work nor seek recognition for my action.”

After further research, I found that O’Neill’s real motivation to come forward was after meeting, this last summer, with families who lost relatives in 9/11. He had been asked to speak at the Memorial Museum and at the last minute decided to speak about Osama bin Laden’s death.  He received so much positive feedback about the amount of closure it brought people.

For these families, being able to put a name to an act we as Americans took pride in, is important. If that was O’Neill’s true motivation in revealing his name, I think he should be honored. I believe it is important for the media to treat this sensitively. If the coverage is too glorifying, some may see O’Neill’s move as one seeking attention and recognition. If they frame this in the right light-telling the whole story of the speech at Memorial Museum, O’Neill is likely to be accepted and thought highly of.  The media should also make sure to mention the entire teams important role in the take down of Osama bin Laden.

Fake & Phony

            Controversy arose Monday when The Associated Press and The Seattle Times, along with the rest of America, learned of a fake news story and site created by the FBI in 2007 to aid in their investigation of a bomb threat suspect. Police called on the FBI for help in June 07 after repeated threats. They sent an email with the link of a fake AP story on a fake Seattle Times webpage to the suspect. The link contained software that gave the FBI the suspect’s location. He was arrested soon after.

            So what’s the big deal? The Associated Press is pretty upset that the FBI used their name and Kathy Best, Seattle Times editor had a few things to say about the matter.

            "Not only does that cross a line, it erases it. Our reputation and our ability to do our job as a government watchdog are based on trust. Nothing is more fundamental to that trust than our independence — from law enforcement, from government, from corporations and from all other special interests. The FBI's actions, taken without our knowledge, traded on our reputation and put it at peril.”

           

            AP and Seattle Times argue this broke the trust the government and the media share but I question that supposed trust. Since stories like Watergate the media has always sought out a scandal.  I wouldn’t exactly call that trust. I also can’t seem to understand how this shed a bad light on AP or Seattle Times. Yes, their names were used without permission but what damage was done to their reputation?

            The FBI stated they will only use this technique in difficult situations when other sources have been exhausted. The only issue I have with this is privacy. How far will the FBI go to catch a suspect? Maybe what AP and Seattle Times are really so upset about is a lack of respect.

She's back

Monica Lewinsky has officially entered the realm of social media. Just 4 days ago, Ms. Lewinsky joined Twitter. Her first tweet? "#HereWeGo". Seems fitting. Not that anyone needs a refresher but Monica Lewinsky is best known as a former White House intern who had an affair with President Bill Clinton in 1995.

In the past, Lewinsky has tried very hard to keep out of the public eye but after joining twitter and her recent essay for Vanity Fair, this may be changing. Her new calling? To end "Cyber Bullying". In fact, Monica Lewinsky is calling herself "Patient Zero" for cyber bullying.

"There was no Facebook, Twitter or Instagram back then," she said. "But there were gossip, news and entertainment websites replete with comment sections and emails which could be forwarded. ..a viral phenomenon that, you could argue, was the first moment of truly 'social media'."

She has a point and finding a way to take a humiliating experience and turn it into a helpful one deserves some credit. The real question is, how will her re-entry into public life be viewed by others? By the media? And at such a critical time...with the Presidential election in 2016 and Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate. How will Lewinsky conduct herself during the election? Will she tweet about it or avoid the subject? Personally, I think her decision to "reemerge" isn't a bad one, but the time she chose seems questionable at best. And she certainly hasn't wasted anytime, just last week she made more than negative remarks about how the White House ruined her in order to protect President Clinton when the affair went public. No offense Ms, Lewinsky, but what did you expect them to do?

Even though Lewinsky claims her re-entry into public life is all for the better, I can't help feeling bad for Hillary Clinton. She's back after 16 years, and there's no way the media is going to  settle for allowing Monica Lewinsky to simply talk about cyber bullying. You can bet, they'll be talk of the affair. Will this hurt Hillary Clinton in the election or will voters feel how I do and sympathize with her?

Too Close for Comfort

    There has always been a constant debate over closing our borders for various reasons: Illegal immigrants, criminals, children. Each side had a valid argument for or against it. The most recent reason? Ebola. 

         The first person in the U.S. was diagnosed with Ebola, and unfortunately passed away Wednesday but there have been over 4,000 cases in West Africa which has spurred the issue of closing the U.S./Mexico border. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas' former governor even made a statement saying "We've seen our borders routinely ignored. So if someone with Ebola really wants to come to the U.S. just get to Mexico and walk right in." Even U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown who has previously promoted border control said that Ebola "..underscores the need to secure our borders." The problem most fear, is that someone from Latin America or elsewhere will become infected and flee to the U.S. 

         The media and most officials have covered the Ebola outbreak in such a way that some have called into question. With every report there is always the same message, "the healthcare professionals in the U.S. are more than capable of handling this", "we have everything under control", "it's not going to spread widely in the U.S." etc.          Now obviously the goal is to avoid panic and chaos but when people begin to hear stories from other sources, even if they are unreliable, that seem to contradict what the media is saying, we begin to fear they aren't telling us the whole truth. Whether or not this is a rational fear to have is beside the point. This is not to say that every media outlet is reporting in this style. In fact CNN and Huffington Post both have reports about border control. The real problem does not lie with the media but with the timeliness and efficiency of our government.

          My biggest question is, even if we do have everything under control, why wouldn't we do everything we could to stop this outbreak in its tracks, even if it might be considered "overkill". People have seriously criticized the Democratic Party along with our President because the reasoning against closing our borders is just plain ridiculous. They want everyone to feel included. This means going as far as eliminating quarantines. Supposedly checking the temperatures of passengers at airports flying in and out of the U.S. should be enough to keep us safe. Am I the only one finding this a bit unsettling?

    In my opinion there should be no debate on this issue. There just isn’t a valid enough reason against closing borders. We’re not trying to exclude people…we’re trying to keep Americans safe and if that hurts some feelings so be it. 

ISIS and the power of the media

        

         I find it interesting and horrifying, the way ISIS has used and continues to use the media to employ fear within others and as a channel for their threats. ISIS has used Twitter, YouTube and even lesser known media sites to spread their message. The message varies from appeals, threats, recruiting and even video showing the slaughter of their hostages. The group can upload their message and spread it globally within minutes. Just last month, ISIS responded to Presisdent Obama’s approval of airstirkes by creating a hashtag on twitter. “#AMessageFromISIStoUS” This is direct and immediate engagement.

         It is obvious they crave attention and recognition for their actions and they are getting just that through the spread of these videos. Not only have they received attention from their own videos but from our own media as well. We have acknowledged them as a major threat, and have given this group extensive coverage. Turn on any news channel and you'll see "ISIS" on your screen. So here's the question, when is news coverage on one particular issue too much coverage? Are we unintentionally aiding in spreading their message by continuing to report on the situation or are the news outlets simply keeping us well informed? And it's not just mass media that is to blame, it's social media.

         Our constant need to be in the know has a downside. We have "shared", "retweeted", "posted" "instagrammed" (the list goes on) images, stories and videos relating to ISIS. Is America helping ISIS promote their message? It's a fine line, a grey area. The media attention ISIS had received and their unfortunately viral videos will only increase the likelihood for other groups to follow in their footsteps. What can we do now? The U.S. is making efforts to shut down accounts on social media and remove these viral videos but as an active user on social media, I can resist sharing photos and videos that amplify their message and encourage others to do the same.

Obama’s plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS.”

     FINALLY Obama got specific about what he plans to do to stop ISIS. His plan includes several steps. First, we will assist Iraqi government and forces with air strikes against terrorists. President Obama even mentioned sending forces to Syria if need be. Second, we will increase ground support to help Iraqi forces. The President plans to send 475 service members but NOT for combat missions. The service members will only be there to assist with training intelligence and equipment. Third, we will continue to draw off counter intelligence capabilities. “We will redouble efforts to cut off ISIS’ funding and counter its warped ideology.”                         

     Obama also plans to attend the UN Security Council meeting to encourage the international community to rally around this effort. Finally the President wants to continue to provide humanitarian assistant to innocent civilians. It all sounds pretty good. As usual President Obama made a strong speech but when we look at the plan itself it begins to look a little half hearted. 

     Obama doesn’t want to engage in a real war, instead let's send in air forces and soldiers to help train, but no one on the ground. No troops actually engaging in combat. It’s unsettling to the American people. His delivery of the plan may have been confident but the plan itself isn’t. The truth is, after 9/11 we’re all a little scared. What is the President doing to protect US? On a positive note, I’m glad we’re doing something. I want us to succeed but after hearing Obama’s speech Wednesday night, I’m left feeling uneasy.