Mass Media and its Influence on Italian Trial Procedures

On December 4th we all watched on as Amanda Knox was tried and convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a British foreign exchange student) in Perugia, Italy. In the days up to and after the trial this case has received endless questions regarding how much impact the media was allowed to have on the jury during Italian trials. To this date there have been three individuals, to include Knox who have been convicted of this murder, but this is not the issue I want to address. Unlike in the United States Italian juries do not have to be sequestered during a trial; meaning jurors are allowed to interact with and be influenced by the media before and during the trial. A number of American are up in arms about this method calling the process "alien-like." I think this causes us to look closer at our legal system and how it can and cannot be influenced by media relations. We essentially have constitutional rights that protect our rights as the accused the receive a fair and speedy trial. Our courts lay out specific procedures so that we can make sure that fairness is attained during our trial period. Our juries are sequestered in order to prevent "a trial by public opinion." This forces the jury, prosecutors, and witnesses to rely strictly on fact and not heresy. With all of the issues that we have in our current system this is one we try to avoid as much as possible. But what if it were not so. As citizens what would we be subjected to if our trials were open to media influence? We have talked numerous times about infotainment, speedy and inaccurate reporting practices, and the business influence of ratings and how that alone influence our daily lives. It scares me to think that if we were in a system like the Italians that we possibly would have a media whose sole aim was to influence jurors to convict people just for ratings.

I doubt that the entire Italian system is unjust, I am just questioning the amount of outside influences they allow to influence their legal system. Something as serious as a murder trial should not be used as a ratings tool here or abroad. It is a shame what happened to all parties in this case, but I am glad that our society does not allow the media to hold the key to influence our legal rights.

End of my Mass Media and Politics Blog

Throughout this course I have learned quite a bit about media, politics, and how we are indirectly or directly influenced by it all. This course along with this blog enabled me to become a more active participant in what I watch, how I watch it, and how I interpret the information given to me. Reverting back to one of my previous posts I think news and how it is currently delivered to us all is in some way shape or form propaganda. The trustworthiness of news lies not only in how the news is delivered but also with who is delivering it. Looking beyond the hidden agendas and the bureaucratic nonsense is our duty as Americans. It is our right to decipher and understand was is true. To be able to apply it to making sound decisions about our country's needs is also in our best interest. Hopefully this blog and this class as been as enlightening for you as it has been for me. I hope that we are all able to keep some sense of passion about the effects of the mass media throughout our lives as we have in this class. I'm glad to have met and worked with you all and enjoyed the comments posted on my page. Thank you for your participation and I hope you all have a Happy Holiday when it comes.

Staying Free and Informed @ KSU

Suzanne M. Bettis
Sgt/ United States Marine Corps
KSU Semper Fidelis Society

Five 9/11 Terror Suspects to Be Tried in NY

Attorney General Eric Holder has just recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed along with four other terror suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be given a federal trial in New York. The location of the court is in close proximity to the WTC site. While some family members of the victims praise the government for their decision, a great number of others consider this decision "insensitive and deplorable." Some New Yorkers feel as if it will re-open wounds that have have no fully healed and that trying these men in NY will give them "a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views" (CNN.com).

Now, I have heard the proponents and opponents of this decision and their reasoning. I have heard that "this should be an easy conviction," "this is a military issue and should be dealt with as such," and of course "Why was President Obama overseas when this decision was made? Was it because he did not want to comment on the decision?"

I believe that these terrorist that have already wholeheartedly admitted guilt to these crimes in the presence of military court should resume their trials by military tribunal. It makes no sense to me to split a trial between two different jurisdictions to appease someones agenda. These men are not American citizens like the domestic terrorists we have tried in the U.S. (i.e. D.C. Sniper, Timothy McVeigh, etc). I heard one individual on the news state that "This will give the world a new view on the U.S. since we water boarded these individuals and used other methods of "torture" on them." Comment on the water boarding: If you do not think other countries are using some sort of "enhanced interrogation tactics" to preserve the peace in their respective countries you need to wake up and smell the roses. The difference between them and us is that they choose not the air their dirty laundry to the world because they consider the safety of their nation more important than the feelings of everyone else. (You can choose to agree or disagree with that last statement, but it will not change my view on the topic.)

Back to the topic though. These men have already been tried in the public eight years ago. And since the argument rests that it will be easy to convict them because of the overwhelming evidence, why has it not already been done? What is our government waiting for? What really angers me about this is we have convicted so many of our own military members for doing harm to "enemy combatants and civilians" in Iraq and Afghanistan, quickly I might add. And have gone eight years without convicting and sentencing any of these five TERRORIST! The American government needs to get its head out of its ass and stop caring so deeply about the feeling of other nations and continuously discounting those of their own citizens. We are the ones paying taxes to the government to keep us safe, yet all of that money is going into Middle East economies that have not put half the amount of effort into the betterment of their own country as we have.

I think Eric Holder needs to resend this decision and give them the military trial these men deserve. So what if the public cannot follow the tribunals. GET IT DONE! If they convict and sentence these guys as fast as they have convicted and sentenced our own military servicemen then there should not be an issue.

Now I know not everyone reading this post will agree with what I am saying. I would like you all to consider the facts though. Eight years held by the military, admissions of guilt, no remorse, would do it again if they had the chance, and not an American citizen. I think we really need to stop discounting the effects these sloppy government decisions are having on our nation. Grow a backbone. Not every nation will agree with what we do or what we stand for. We can't make everyone happy, but we can take care of our business and make our nation safer. I believe our government needs to worry about what it CAN control instead of what it CANNOT.

So, let me know what your feelings are. I can't control them and don't intend to. But I will listen and take them into consideration.

Paying the Taliban: Good or Bad Idea?

The Defense Spending Bill that President Obama has signed has a section in it that will allow the U.S. military in Afghanistan to pay Taliban fighters to essentially quit or switch sides. These funds are in fact taxpayer dollars. This tactic was used in Iraq with the "Concerned Local Citizens" a.k.a the "Sons of Iraq" community group. This tactic, especially now is not sitting too well with American citizens. The thought of paying the people who are killing service men and women daily is hard to swallow. Some worry that they will "take the cash and keep on fighting." Others argue that it was this very program that enabled the "Troop Surge" in Iraq to be successful.

Pres. Obama in the video above states that he will do anything in his power to keep the American people safe. I don't have an issue with that, I have an issue with negotiating with terrorist. For as long as I have been in the military I have always been told that, "America does not negotiate with terrorist." What is even more intriguing to me is that not only are civilian contractors getting paid better than military personnel by our government but our enemies are as well. I feel as if this is another attempt to put a band aid on a arterial bleed. In addition, with the amount of opium-growing that is currently funding the Taliban I do not think they are hurting for money. The National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University's article, "Taliban Drug Money Targeted by U.S. Military" reported that "the Taliban... are expected to strongly defend the opium crop that generates an estimated $300 million annually to pay for weapons, recruiting, and other needs." In addition, "The Taliban also generate income by collecting protection payments from opium farmers." So, how much more will we have to pay the Taliban for them to first consider the offer and then for how long will these payments be made? On the flip-side of this, the program was done in Iraq. Why didn't anyone find too much fault with it at that time? Is it because of how the media has or has not covered the first attempt at paying militant groups? Or did President Obama make a mistake by attaching the Hate Crimes bill to a Defense Spending bill which allowed for further scrutiny of the document.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure. I do think because of the current economic hardships that our country is facing, the news media will ensure it reports/monitors all government spending initiatives. So while Fmr. President Bush, Jr. was able to implement this same plan years prior without notice or conflict, Pres. Obama will be harshly scrutinized and picked apart by the media, political figures, late night hosts, and more importantly the American people for essentially trying to do the same thing.

Tell me what you think. Is the media blowing this entire thing out of proportion or do you think that it is a workable plan if implemented correctly?

Confused and Concerned about Hate Crime Legislation

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social groups, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc. President Obama today is signing a new Hate Crimes Bill that received final approval from the Senate on Oct. 22nd to legislation already passed by the House that expands federal hate-crimes statutes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Once the bill becomes law the Department of Justice will have broader authority to investigate and prosecute violent crimes "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." However, social conservatives are arguing that this piece of legislation will stifle free speech, especially by religious leaders who "preach the Gospel" as they have learned it without fear of persecution.

This can pose a problem since Americans sure do love those First Amendment rights. I have a couple of statements and concerns about this bill and its potential to possibly put people in jail for a thought, intention, or prejudice. These intangible things, as bad as they may be are currently not arrestable offenses. This is what I do not understand. Hate crime at the end of the day is still a crime no matter how it is labeled. I'm not saying that it does not matter the reasoning behind why the crime was committed, but in a court of law at the end of the day it comes down to you either committing the crime or not. The act of murdering someone is a crime; whether your reasoning behind committing the crime was rooted in hate or prejudice. If you look at this definition of "hate crime" after the bill is signed the act of doing harm to someone is not the only offense you will be prosecuted for, but the thought behind the act will be weighed probably in the sentencing phase.

It is interesting to me that with all this said politicians don't deem gang related violence as "hate crimes." I guarantee they hate each other based on some form of prejudice, bias, racial grouping, neighborhood grouping, etc. Potentially, this law will give the Justice Department the teeth to investigate the wild or timid rantings of any individual that says anything controversial about another group of people bases on the categories listed above. However, like most laws they will be discriminatory in their application. Example: The lower class individual who "thinks" and voices his/her opinion passionately on a group of people will have a file and a potential offense that can and probably will be prosecuted in a court, while a Senator or Congressman who among his/her friend voices their opinion about those "Towelheads infiltrating America" or even going back to my previous blog with that woman in East Cobb raving about "The Muslims breeding at an increase rate to take over America." I would bet you the last two individuals most likely would not even be taken into consideration unless someone seriously pushed for it, but that first guy or girl is SOL.

I think it will be interesting when individuals actually start getting prosecuted under this new law because they are going to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where there is are already a number of cases like Near v. Minnesota and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that combat these infringement on "prior restraint and fighting words that may or may not incite an immediate breach of peace" both were ruled unconstitutional.

I think if we just continue to enforce the current laws on the books to their full extent we will be successful in keeping dangerous people (prejudice, crazy, or not) in jail without having to infringe upon the right of the rest of the nation.

Tell me what you think about the new law and how it will be applied to various people and its potential effects on Free Speech in America.

Propaganda, When is it for the Public Good or Not?

Last week in class we watched clips about the Power of Propaganda. We saw a 1935 film called "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl about Nazi Germany in addition to a film made between 1942-1945 by the United States government during WWII called "Why We fight." Both films enhanced their agendas by appealing to the common emotions of oppression and the will to survive that oppression in order to accomplish what their governments deemed a common goal shared by its people. The reason I bring this topic up is because I just got back from watching Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Even though he along with various critics call it a documentary, in essence it is still propaganda. This is the first and only Michael Moore movie I have ever watched so I was not quite sure what to expect. It did however have the same tones of the propaganda pieces that I've mentioned above, only this piece was not done by a government agency. That last sentence might not mean much to the average everyday individual but to me it adds a different element to how a piece of propaganda can be viewed. Propaganda is commonly defined as "communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." With the selective use of facts and how they are presented a particular agency or individual can influence an audience to produce an emotional and/or rational response to what is presented to them. What I am trying to find out is, is any propaganda ever good for the public? If it is or is not, when are those times? As we all know at this point in time our economy along with that of many others is deteriorating at a rapid rate. It is unstable, unregulated, and unmanageable (in its current state). With all personal feelings aside I think Mr. Moore's film was propaganda that was necessary for the public good. Why, you might ask. Well here is my explanation. So many times I have witnessed people from all walks of life who tend not to care about their fellow man's situation until it starts to personally impact them. This is what was going on at the beginning of the economic crash. Individuals watched as people lost their homes, jobs, and lives and said, "Damn, that's a shame," and then either changed the channel or went on their merry way. What they at the time failed to realize was that the domino effect just had not hit their households yet. Then the "Damn, that's a shame," turned in to a "WTF America?" And that's putting it nicely. Just like the "Why We Fight" film called for Americans to stand up and fight for a cause that directly impacts their ability to survive in a world, Mr. Moore's film in my opinion does the same. The only difference is our issue does not lie on foreign shores, but within the boundaries of our states, cities, and towns. Like I said before, put all personal feelings aside.

Many politicians do not like people that disagree with them and especially don't like being called on their mistakes. And common practice to combat people like that is to personally attack their character. This kind of "interview" or "debate" is commonly practiced in the media by various organizations. Before there were news stations, or radio stations, there were people who understand clearly when they were being taken advantage of, and instead of passing it off as "someone else's problem" they stood together, responsible for the well-being of each other. They knew that if something effects one, it will effect them all. As I mentioned before, the first two films mentioned were more military related concerning war efforts. Well here is a perspective for you. I have been to war twice in my 24 years on this Earth so I would say I know one when I see one. Let me give you a gist.

War=complete chaos+death+homelessness+loss of businesses+crushed economy+angry/oppressed people fighting against something "they" deem unjust+stress+distrust+agony+depression...and the list goes on. These things happen before, during, and after a war and they are happening in this country now. Don't misunderstand my blog. This is a call for awareness not a revolution. But if one is necessary so be it.

So why are we so reluctant to take into consideration propaganda from everyday American citizens (not just Michael Moore), but we take government propaganda and run with it? Well, the politicians and the media have more money. They run adds every hour on the hour to influence a particular response from viewers. Hold on now, we have the Internet! We don't have to pay ANYTHING to post on YouTube and a couple other websites. So what is the hold up? The hold up is your house of cards hasn't fallen yet. It doesn't concern you yet. Right? Wrong Again!

I am fortunate to see America through a foreign pair of eyes in addition to some American ones (Thanks Vision Works). Coming to this country years ago, I would never expect it to be in the present position it is in. All nations go through various forms of turmoil so I can't throw any stones, but when we and our politicians know exactly what the problem is and use media relations to skate around these issues I am past frustrated. Uncle Sam can feed its military and citizens enough propaganda to run up the bills, but when someone uses it to address the reasons we have the bills in the first place it's looked down upon, hidden, or totally discarded.

With our media as it is today, is any propaganda that is currently shown on television, by radio, or newspaper in the best interest of the citizenry? If so, where is it and how do you know if there is not an underlying agenda to once again line someone else's pockets with your hard earned money?

P.S. Still confused somewhat about derivatives.

Oh, one last thing. Here is some government propaganda for you below.

Who fact checks SNL?

The forever controversial and comedic Saturday Night Live recently produced a skit with President Obama and his list of things he promised but had not yet accomplished. CNN and FOX news have gone back and forth on what was said on the show. The SNL claims that President Obama in his first 9 months of his presidency has "Accomplished Nothing," has sent a firestorm of tweets, blogs, and random comments flooding the Internet and media channels. The following was shown on the list: Close Guantanamo Bay (Not Done), Out of Iraq (Not Done), Make Improvements in War In Afghanistan (Worse), Health care Reform (Hell No), Global Warming (Not Done), Immigration reform, etc. CNN in addition to a couple of other partisan and non-partisan outlets actually decided to fact check SNL. That seems to be a first. Now, depending on what channel you watch SNL was either right or wrong, but the media giants have cast the illusion that SNL speaks for the masses. When special interest groups, politicians, and the media start using comedic performances as a policy reference or societal gauge, then I believe we have a greater issue. That SNL skit coverage was a blatant form of "intotainment" and "dramatization" by various mediums to cover a controversial situation without having to do the skit themselves. The ability to sensationalize a television show and give it credibility by fact checking it shows that the bureaucratic nature of the mass media is to piggy back on substantiated and/or unsubstantiated claims made by various outlets in hopes that it will result in a ratings increase.