Love and Honor: The Possible Death To Tradition Looms Near

Miami University’s President, Dr. David Hodge, gave his annual address to an audience that mostly contained professors, or faculty of the university. Yet, the irony of the audience’s situation was due to the overarching theme of Dr. Hodge’s speech: Miami University must change its culture to be able to adapt to the demands of a turmoil economy and nation. “"Change is no longer an option,” Dr. Hodge declared passionately to his audience, “whether we like it or not, rapid and profound change is coming to higher education" This change, which was only vaguely mentioned in the course of his address, must involve all members of Miami University. Dr. Hodge seems determined to alter and mold the culture of Miami University into a collective group that follows his ideals. If Dr. Hodge is truly determined to alter traditions, to make the university have a new mindset of principles, standards and morals then he needs to appeal to all of the people the make up Miami University. He cannot change every tradition—this will isolate the alumni that are vital to the financial survival of the university.

In addition, Dr. Hodge must consider the possible implications of his determination to change the culture of the university that prides itself in tradition. When I asked a senior professor of The College of Arts and Science, who wished to remain anonymous, about their thoughts on the changes Dr. Hodge has in store for Miami University I was not surprised that they seemed spectacle. “Dr. Hodge has always been a little too idealistic,” they whispered to me, making sure no one could hear their honesty. “[Hodge] needs to realize that many people will not be willing to change the “culture” of Miami. He needs to find a better way to talk about change than attacking tradition.”

"Love and Honor", the ending to Dr. Hodge’s speech, is a tradition that will hopefully not be altered to “Innovation and Execution.”

(Image from Miami University)

Politico: Ignoring the Average American Voice?

Politco.com as a website brings up many issues about a genre-centric approach to journalism. When a group of journalist focus on one sole type of new stories, in the case of Politco.com is American politics in Washington D.C., they neglect other important stories that are not part of their chosen scope. For example, when one opens the website page the first thing noticeable is every article on the main page is about Washington related politics. The main article for Sunday afternoon, for instance, was about how Rick Perry lost the Florida straw poll to Herman Cain, a “long-shot candidate”.

Within “Rick Perry reels after Florida flop” reporters Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman only have quotes and analysis of the GOP candidate’s failure in Florida by Washington based individuals. What would have been more conducive to this article that was about how state based members of the Republican Party would have been to have insight to why Florida citizens chose not to support Rick Perry. Instead, they had Republican strategist, for example, point out the ways Perry could return to power and why he was unable to win the straw poll. Due to Politco.com’s desire to solely look at American politics in the scope of Washington many of their articles loose the voice of the average American, and the politics that truly matter to them.

In truth, Politco.com is a wonderful idea. It allows readers to know exactly what kind of view they will be given on certain political issues and stories. There is nothing wrong with having a genre-centric approach to journalism. However, the only concern of this approach is the way isolates average Americans, who have something to say about politics that take place in their state and affect the whole nation.

A Media Comparison

While reading The New York Times, Fox News and Sam Stein’s article that was posted on Huffington Post about the national unemployment report and President Obama’s address to a Joint Session of Congress that will occur this Thursday I could not help but notice that despite the fact that all three sources tell the facts of the story there seemed to be a slight slant in the wording the articles. However, before the conversation about the skewed viewing of the facts, it is important to consider how the facts are presented in the articles.

The New York Times presented the facts, which are the how, what, when, who and why’s of the story, in the most detached, passive voice about Obama’s speech and the unemployment report. Also, the article provided links to their other articles about the facts. Due to the fact that The New York Times provides these links it forces one to believe that it has an authoritative voice, a trustworthy voice, and one that you can trust while you pursue the truth. It seems as if The New York Times is aimed for liberal, upper class Americans, who have a thirst for knowledge that is not tainted with the GOP’s agenda.

Fox News has the same facts as The New York Times; in actuality, their facts are quoted in the Huffington Post article. However, there is something funny about the article. It was hard to discern the facts from the opinions of the writers. For instance, when the writers is discussing why Obama will not be focusing on unemployment in his speech Henry and Barnes “but it could also be an attempt by the administration to show the president is trying to stay all over the economy heading into what will likely be an uphill re-election battle”. The tone of this piece, in comparison to the other two that are more passive in their voices, suggest that there is something sinister about Obama’s decision to not touch upon the report.

All of the articles ended on a note of the unknown. Because the news story has not reached its conclusion, and the press is speculating about what Obama will speak on at his address, the articles cannot give a concrete answer about the future of America’s employment issues. Noteworthy, however, is the conclusion of the Huffington Post article, which had former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell speaking on what he believed Obama should be doing instead of going on a tour and speaking about the employment issues in America while among Americans and not politicians.

After looking at all of the articles I would have trusted The New York Times the most because it is just providing cold hard facts with little opinions. Huffington Post is a close second because despite the detached voice and little opinions I cannot seem to trust a source that is one: a blog and two: getting their facts from other people’s articles. That does not make them a source or an authority on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-jobs-speech_n_947181.html

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/02/white-house-hints-more-economic-speeches-proposals-ahead

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/economy/united-states-showed-no-job-growth-in-august.html?_r=1&hp