Same Story, Skewed Accounts

 True knowledge and intelligence demands a certain level of skepticism because if we believed everything we’re told, we really don’t know anything at all. As educated individuals, we constantly question what we are told to believe. Information and knowledge is power but the wrong information and intentionally skewed presentation of data may be the most influential. With the internet at our disposal, our ability to research and gather information is almost too easy but how reliable is the information we’re presented? It is common sense that a well-developed opinion requires credible evidence and supporting data, but how credible are the “credible” sources we depend on to make decisions, form opinions, and culture ideas?

Nothing triggers a debate over news media bias quite like a good old-fashion presidential election. As MSNBC and Fox News have openly staked out their respective liberal and conservative territory, it is no secret to the public that bias is inevitable even in the most bipartisan issue. In fact, according to a survey conducted but the Pew Research Center in fall of 2012, seventy-seven percent of those surveyed believe that the media “tend to favor one side.”

In their highly acclaimed 2004 research, professors of economics Dr. Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Dr. Jeff Milyo of Stanford University developed a method to quantitatively measure the bias of major media sources. Long story short, by ranking well-known politicians’ level of liberalism and conservatism (100 for most liberal and 0 for most conservative), Groseclose and Milyo were able to calibrate the political bias of 20 of America’s major media outlets. Summarized in the table below with 18 of the 20 major sources of news scoring left of center, the final report concluded that the “results show a strong liberal bias.”

Newspaper rankings can be seen here.

In another very interesting research by two University of Chicago economists, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, found that there are subtle but very intentional differences regarding the rhetoric politicians choose to use depending on their political party, “for instance, conservatives often say ‘illegal aliens’ when liberal prefers ‘undocumented workers’…what liberals refer to as ‘the estate tax,’ conservative call ‘the death tax’.” Considering the very different connotations between the phrases, with “illegal aliens” implying that immigrants are unwanted outsiders and “undocumented workers” implying unfortunate but hard working individuals, it is not hard to determine each political party’s stance on the issue of illegal immigration. With other examples such as one party calling the same war the “war in Iraq” and another the “global war on terror”, a newspaper or new media’s seemingly innocent decision to use certain phrases over other actually subtly points to their political bias.

While there are those who believe the media to be very politically biased, there are still those who argue that the media is more centralist than most would think. According to a Washington Post article, there are five main reasons why people today believe that the media is biased.

1. Internet Access
   With technology, people have more access to more sources of news therefore our chances of reading biased information has increased.
2. Media WatchdogsAn entire industry exists just to point out “media’s alleged failings”
3. Entertainment vs. NewsThere’s very distinct difference between a cable channel’s news reports versus its news programs which exist specifically for the sake of entertainment. News reports themselves are actually quite objective while the programs are very biased. 
4. We know more and can second-guessThe more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know.
5. People believe their preferred news sources are objective and fair while others are notWe like to hear that our opinions are right and the other side is wrong.

Regardless of the whether or not media bias has increased, we make a conscious (or sometimes unconsciously) on how we want information to be presented to us. It is our right to vote but with that right comes the responsibility to be informed and well-educated. Media bias will become very evident in the months leading up to the presidential election so it is extremely important to be aware of how the media is choosing to present information. And most of all, it is important for us to be aware of our own personal 

The Nation's Battlegrounds

In one year, every American born in or before 1998 will be eligible to cast their vote for the 45^th president of the United States. Regardless of political affiliation, November 2016 and the months leading up to D-Day will be one exciting political whirlwind especially for this year’s batch of college students as it will be their first major election. Although the thrill of wearing an “I voted” sticker may be a very new sensation for many young Americans, knowledge of the nation’s political divide certainly is not.

It is no secret, even for the youngest of voters, that there are good handful of states that will always, always, always vote red and the other handful that will always, always, always vote blue. Political affiliation and party loyalty has deep roots in American history, so much so that it has become part of a region’s identity so logically, many states are hard pressed to swing. According to an article by TampaBay Times, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have voted democratic in the last six consecutive elections compared to thirteen that have voted conservative. Along with these eighteen states? 242 electoral votes out of 538. With the magic winning number being 270 electoral votes, a win should be cake for a Democratic candidate. According to conservative pundit George Will of Fox News Sunday, “if the Democratic presidential nominee can assume those [eighteen] states, he or she will spend the autumn of 2016 looking for 28 electoral votes, and he or she will find them.”

And that is why Governor Chris Christie holds very commanding power in the right wing. As governor of New Jersey, one of the eighteen states that has voted blue since Bill Clinton in 1992, being the republican representative for five years and counting is no small feat.

So what states will play battleground for the upcoming presidential election? Who will be the most valuable voters of 2016?

Here come the big players.

According to The Washington Post, the last presidential election of 2012 had nine “truly” crucial swing states: Colorado, Florida (no surprise there), Iowa (also no surprise), Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Given that there is currently only one official candidate for 2016, the battleground states have yet to be set in stone but sources tend to agree on a handful of the same states from election to election with the National Journal including Michigan and Pennsylvania (yay!) in the mix. Regardless of source however, Iowa is almost always one of the biggest players.

Looks like we’re not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. As one of the nation’s whitest states (91% according to Huffington Post), it is quite surprising that this whitewashed, very wealthy, un-diverse state could play such a critical role in elections. So why is Iowa so important? The simple answer? It is the first state to weigh in during the presidential campaign. Iowa, along with New Hampshire, are so important that it is said that “losing both New Hampshire and Iowa can destroy a candidacy. Winning a sure path to nomination.”

With so much media attention (and we all know how influential the media is), it can be safely said that the ballots of Iowa hold significant power especially for the other swing states.

The bottom line for future voters who don’t want to stay up and watch all the votes come in? Wait for Iowa’s results (and New Hampshire if you want) and call it a day. It’s a 50-50 shot so might as well put the money on the Iowans.

For those hoping to put in a presidential bid in the future? You better work fast and build some roots in the Hawkeye State.

Generation Politics: How the Sides are Chosen

As rebellious and restless as the Baby Boomers of the turbulent Sixties were, our generation of young adults may be giving them a run for their money. The Millennial Generation is arguably one of the most polarizing to their parents as they are one of the most liberal and less religious demographics in American history. This is not to say in any way, that liberalness equates to rebellion, but it does mean that this younger population has very different views compared to times past. 

Yet, similar to religion, more often than not, political affiliation is an heirloom. And one deeply, deeply rooted in familial identity. So how are the sides between liberalism and conservatism chosen? Are they simply passed down and firmly fixed by how we are raised? Is it even something we have the freedom to choose?

There is this common and fairly rational belief that the younger populace tends to lean more left than the more traditional, firmly-rooted older one. And this assumption appears to be make a lot of sense. Generally speaking, young adults are more open to new and different ideas as they are still developing their sense of value and self; and thus are more inclined to be liberal as the Democratic Party heavily favors progression and reform. But according to an article by the New York Times, this conclusion is as valid as a "broken clock"; accurate at times, but mostly due to luck.

What really influences a political affiliation is time mentality. Contrary to belief, we actually hold limited power over what side of the political spectrum we decide to align with because this decision was more strongly influenced by the quiet power of history, past and present.

Academic research by political scientists Yair Ghitza and Andrew Gelman has found that generations have "ideological identities" and that political affiliations are established by events surrounding a person’s early years. This awareness of the world and its social conflicts can begin as young as 10 years old. 

Think about it. As a population, the Millennial Generation grew up during times of the infamous Iraq War and a struggling economy, both heavily blamed on the Republican Bush administration. And then after Bush, the young population witnessed the historical victory of current President Barack Obama. It also discussed and followed the long battle for gay marriage, seen the horrors of Sandy Hook and other related gun initiated tragedies, rallied for climate change laws, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. It’s no wonder this generation is more liberal. It grew up in a time of liberal dominance.

And to show this concept of time mentality holds, the rebellious liberals of the 1960’s came of age with the “glamour of John F. Kennedy.” “The babies of the late 1960s and early 1970s, [who] entered political consciousness during the Reagan years” and consequently, leaned Republican.

And once a side is picked, a person will be hard pressed to change it throughout his or her entire lifetime. Check out this interactive model of how birth year influences political views. Drag the bar and you can see a pattern of political mentality plotted against time. According to the data gathered, "events at age 18 are about three time as powerful as those at age 40". So once you pick a side, you're pretty much in for life. 

And this is what puts the Democratic Party at such a dangerous place.They may be bathing in the glory of a mostly liberal population but they are also most vulnerable now as they face a nation fed up with Capital Hill's political gridlock and slow progress. One wrong move here or there, and they may turn history's most liberal generation conservative. 

So Mr. Sam Tanenhaus, author of The Death of Conservatism, may say that “conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead”, but the generation is still young and coming of age. According to the Newsmax article, the youngest voters for the upcoming 2016 election were born in 1998, and “are probably too young to recall the Bush presidency, the reasons for the Iraq war, or even perhaps the euphoria surround Barack Obama’s Campaign”.

In short: nothing is locked in and everything is still up for grabs.

Pressure’s on left wing.

Divided we stand, even in a subway ban

For those of you who are unaware, the United States of America is composed of not two, but four legislative houses: the Blue Party of the Senate, the Red Party of the Senate, the Blue Party of Congress, and the Red Party of Congress. It’s funny really, that every year, the President is extended an invitation to speak at the State of the Union, and every year, we hear this word “bipartisanship” spoken with such conviction, such patriotism, and such hope  and yet nothing changes and we are all left wondering if politicians really know what the word means.

Cue Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride:

With the threats of government shutdowns and countering presidential vetoes, even a nation that finds great entertainment with political rhetoric and disagreement is frustrated as proven with the transfer of power to the GOP in the 2014 Midterm Elections. According to Gallup article, nearly four out of five Americans see political gridlock as a major problem as they witness all talk and no action. Deliberation is justified but argument and disagreement for the sake of argument and disagreement is well, simply put, unjustified.

But keep in mind that politics are tough. They encompass deep history, sensitivity in moral stances, debate (more or less), irrelevant rhetoric (more or less), economics, time, and timing.  With the upcoming 2016 Presidential Election, candidates are scrambling to design the perfect platform to capture American votes. For many of us, 2016 will be the first major election we will participate in so with this blog, I hope to give some insight into what is to come so we can determine for ourselves, how divided, or united, our government really is.

And of course, who is deserving of our vote.

With each post, I will provide insight into any current events, its corresponding political discourse (because of course, there will always be some) and a look into important political figures and potential 2016 candidate (starting next post).

So prepare yourself as an industrial engineer reaches into the realms party politics.

BLIZZARD 2015

As all of you know (and have experienced), there has been a little bit of snow fall recently on the eastern coast.

Weather, as we also all know, can sometimes be so unpredictable, so naturally, the weatherman will occasionally get it all wrong, thus making that particular occupation, one of great public distrust. Yet, as unpredictable weather may be at times, it is a fairly technical problem. Call it a “Type 1” problem, if you will. One with high levels of agreement. Yet, with the ongoing discourse in New York City, it appears that this Type 1 issue, may have to be upgraded to a Type 3.

According to The Atlantic, there is political discourse even amongst the topic of weather. With weather channels promising “a blizzard of historic and catastrophic proportions” early this week, the people of New York City were expecting at least thirty inches of snow, therefore, understandably, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a city wide shut down at 11 p.m. Tuesday night and “made the unprecedented decision” to shut down the NYC subway system.

Unfortunately, what was done in the name of public safety turned into one of great public frustration as the people of New York woke up the next morning with only six inches of snow. In a clip from MSNBC’s All In WithChris Hayes, it is revealed that Mayor de Blasio received only a fifteen minute notice to the very first closure of nation’s largest subway system. “Are you freaking kidding me?”, say Hayes, maybe there is some lack of simple communication even in our state and local government? No deliberation? A complete “power” move?

According to a Time report, the recent snowstorm shutdown cost was likely over $500 million. Was the shutdown a bad call? Maybe a misleading hype made by the media? (Media presentation may be a whole other controversy on its own)

All in all, $500 million is a huge loss, but hey, in my opinion, better safe than sorry.