Mass_Media_and_Class_Media

The New York Times published a one page article titled “Clinton Caves In” on the top left hand side of the newspaper, written by Bob Herbert, criticizing former President Bill Clinton for not keeping his promise on allowing all citizens to serve openly in the military, regardless of their sexual orientation. The opening sentence got straight to the point, “He didn’t fight, he caved”, implying that he “caved” after his concept of policy introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 was rejected by Congress. Herbert described Clinton supporters as being “deceived” and “disillusioned” for his broken promise of lifting the ban on forbidding gays from serving openly in the military while campaigning for the Presidency. Thomas B. Stoddard, director of the Campaign for Military Service, which doesn’t support the ban on gays in the military said commented on Clinton’s action and said “He raised this issue as a matter of principle. You can’t simply split the difference on matters or p rinciple.” Herbert furthers Stoddard’s argument and said “Not only does Bill Clinton think he can split the difference, he’s apparently quite comfortable dispensing with principle altogether. In this case the President has signed off on an absurd policy that has been dubbed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’” The writer gives two scenarios on why he feels the “silly” term, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is appropriate. Imagine soldiers and sailors going to a gay bar and not getting kicked out , however, if they were to acknowledge that they went to the gay bar because they were gay, you bet they would be thrown off. The second scenario describes a heterosexual person engaging in a casual conversation and if asked about his sexuality, he could respond in all honesty, but if one asked a gay soldier, he wouldn’t be able to respond or tell the truth. Herbert then analyzes the situation and states, “In other words, we are implementing a national policy which requires individuals who are doing nothing wrong to lie in order to avoid severe punishment. That is wrong.” The pattern we see here is that the writer provides examples and advances his argument by advocating for what he believes in. Herbert reveals his attitude towards Clinton by informing the audience that “The President is not doing anyone any favors with his policy.” The gays need him to empower them to come out of the closet, not stay in the closet. The writer questions Clinton’s action by saying that there are people who sees themselves as being hard-nosed and politically astute who say “this is the best the President could do.” If Clinton couldn’t win against Congress, why bother fighting a lost battle' President Clinton is not guaranteed to lose the battle, so “just being an underdog is not a reason to quit.” He’s compared to Martin Luther and Thurgood Marshall, both of whom were defeated in their wars against discrimination, but were determined to fight, “especially when matters of principle are involved.” This news coverage wonders whether there is any principle for which Bill Clinton will fight and questions if he truly believes in anything because “he has established a long and consistent and troubling pattern.” The media gives an example of this by using an outside source; while campaigning for Presidency, he denied use of marijuana when asked if he had ever smoked, then later admitted actually smoking in England during a television interview. The writer ties it in and says, “It may have seemed like a trivial matter, but Bill Clinton’s attitude toward the truth in that episode is closely related to the contempt for the truth that he is adopting as the national policy regarding the gays in the military. This demeans the United States.” The media explains the irony in Clinton by describing him as “a man who tries so desperately to be liked by everyone, but he doesn’t seem to understand that much of the disappointment and disillusionment is because he tries so hard to be liked by everyone.” Towards the end, the writer quotes Clinton himself at the time when he withdrew the nomination of his friend Lani Guinier to make himself look good by saying publicly, “I love her. I think she’s wonderful. If she called me and told me she needed $5,000, I’d take it from my account and send it to her, no questions asked.” The writer clearly uses outside sources to show his pattern of “reneging on promises and running from confrontations.” In the middle of the article in big font, there was a catchy statement: “Keeping the closet door closed on gay soldiers” which emphasizes the discrimination the gay soldiers face. Although there were no pictures to accompany the article, the writer’s attitude is mostly conveyed by en ding “It also sends a message across the land about the leadership abilities of Bill Clinton.” Baltimore Jewish Times, publication targeted towards the Jew community also published a rather longer article by James D. Besser about this Bill Clinton’s take on the policy, titled “Gay Military Policy Upsets Jewish Groups: Officials fear that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ guideline could open doors for future prejudice.” President Clinton’s policy on gays serving openly in the military was frowned upon by the Jewish community that had been involved into attempting to end the ban by joining gay and lesbian organizations and civil rights in a coalition to fight the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy.” The Jewish activists reported that the policy “represents a precedent that is both morally wrong and dangerous to other minorities.” The writer provided a more detailed explanation of the decision process, explaining the heavy pressure from the military, the Christian Right and a couple of key members of Congress. These influences forced President Clinton to break his promise to lift the ban on gay soldiers serving openly after being re-examined by Defense Secretary Les Aspin for six months. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism commented and said that Clinton should be commended for improving the situation in terms of attempting to accommodate gays in the military, but expresses that group is “disheartened that he did not go further and end the ban entirely, even if it had resulted in a major fight in Congress.” This media also reveals what people have done to fight the issue and how the public, especially the Jew community actually feel, which we didn’t get from New York Times. Saperstein tells the efforts of the Jews with very different perspectives on the morality of homosexuality, rallying together to the anti-ban cause “because of the strong Jewish aversion to officially sanctioned discrimination of any kind, and because of its implications for other minorities.” He further explains that they have been in the forefront of every struggle for equality because if any group can be discriminated against in American society, there’s a chance it can happen to them too. “It touches a raw nerve, in terms of Jewish memory”, said Saperstein. Another source was used in this article, Chai Feldblum, legal and policy director for the Campaign for Military Service, the hub organization of civil rights, gay and lesbian organizations and religious groups that led the fight against the ban, adding on to what the Jews were concerned of. “What this decision says is that in ten years, if the mood in this county changes and people say that they really feel uncomfortable working with Jews, then the president could issues a policy saying that in order to ensure military efficiency, we’ll let Jewish people serve -- but only if they don’t say they’re Jewish,” Ms. Feldblum said. The writing style has a compassionate voice, portraying a deeper connection to the sufferings of “others.” It tends to focus more on community, what’s actually going to happen to them and the future, and more backlashing at President Clinton’s decision. This media also covered this event with a sense of humanity, evidently explaining that this issue will not only affect the gays, but others as well. “Allowing fears and prejudices to shape government policy can open the door to the government doing the same things to other groups who are hated, and who are able to pass,” she said. She indicated that her group will fight the new regulations in court, while the Jewish groups will help in supporting that effort. Several Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the National Council of Jewish Women, also criticized Clinton’s decision. “The notion that individuals who fully comply with good conduct regulations are secure in the military only as long as they remain ‘in hiding’ should be repugnant to any minority that has been targeted for prejudice and discrimination -- and to all Americans,” said Melvin Salberg, the ADL chairman, in an issued statement. Susan Katz, the president of the National Council of Jewish Women, said that the president’s new policy “enshrines the shameless double standard that exists in the U.S. armed forces today.” Orthodox groups maintain Torah prohibitions against homosexuality, so they stay out of the way. They don’t want to be misinterpreted as supporting the homosexual lifestyle, however, they strongly oppose attacks on group and discrimination. Jewish war veterans, on the other hand, favors the continuation of the ban. Herb Rosenbleeth, the group’s national commander says that lifting the ban “would be an impediment to military readiness and morale.” The commentators provide a collective attitude towards the policy and gives meaningful insights in this coverage. We also see an opposing point of view, which shows that there are still few Jewish groups that are totally fine with the policy so we cannot generalize all of them. The writer concludes the article by describing Israel’s acceptance of gay soldiers and the fact that the presence of homosexual personnel has not compromised the country’s legendary military readiness or morale. They’ve also dropped restrictions against gays in high-military intelligence jobs after learning about the debate in the U.S. It was quite fascinating to analyze two different news coverage. I was definitely surprised that the Jewish news magazine had more information and more commentators. I assumed the newspaper might have more depth and pictures since it’s more targeted to the general audience. The newspaper also tended to focus on just criticizing Clinton, while the ethnic magazine also did that, they were also able to provide descriptions of how people truly feel about this and what’s they’re doing to fight this issue. The tones were also different. The writing style in the newspaper had a more negative, bitter tone, while the magazine had a more hopeful tone, raising awareness among their community and the people in general. Just recently, we have seen debates on CNN and article written on Time with this issue and it’s amazing how the media now tries to cover both Democratic and Republic, giving the audience different point of views with more details, pictures, statistics, and knowledge to get better informed about important events in our society.