race is not an issue in their reporting and that it docs not change how they tell a story in any substantive way.
Intention and action are different ideas. There may be an intention to not 'see colour' yet biases will always taint our point of view. Not only in encoding but decoding the message as well
a diJferencc that is statistically significant. Men are more likely to be portrayed as political insiders than arc women
I wonder if this number has improved with recent elections? Again an indicator of larger social issues
black politicians arc seen as less capable of handling policy related to taxes, the economy, education, and the n1ilitary.
Interesting how racism is veiled under political stereotypes
He said that his views arc based on what he hears from his constituents
Related to the issue in a previous reading regarding privilege
migration and 31 5.9 35 7.7 66 6-7 multiculturalism'
Interesting how immigration is an issue talked about at the same level with both white and minority groups
visible minority candidates are more likely than white candidates to be connected to crime issues,
connected to crime issues as in talking about the importance of targeting crime, or connected to issues such as crime?
privileged—systematically advantaged
Again these issues go deeper than identity politics but larger social issues as a whole
What is crucial about the “identity” of identity politics appears to be the experience of the subject, especially his or her experience of oppression and the possibility of a shared and more authentic or self-determined alternative.
I think this is a conditional but not required aspect of identity. If one is a minority, there is an aspect of authenticity with experience, but not necessarily required
identity
What does this mean for segmenting groups in order to better engage with an audience? What implications do those with different identities mean for politicians and their platforms?
blanket description that invokes a range of tacit political failings
I agree with this criticism - I think it takes away from the severity and importance of issues when you use a blanket term
I completely agree with this section! I feel like it is harder to engage with politics, and that is partly due to the fact that I am worried others will judge me for my lack of engagement, or lack of participation. But the thing is, oftentimes it is impossible to find a good time or place to start engaging. Its extremely daunting to engage with politics
allowed people to hear only the news, facts, and opinions they want to hear.
This is very interesting because social media has become so farmed out to marketing and other media companies who are willing to shell out large amounts of cash in order to increase influence and increase their own revenue. Turns out this has become a double edged sword that has now influenced the way we see news, facts, and opinions on our social media platforms.
social homogeneity.
This ties in with the idea of the nation state vs globalization debate. The author argues that the rise of democracy is tied to the idea of nationalism, the idea of the nation state?
shared facts.
This reminds me of issues surrounding converging media systems, in which large conglomerates will own many newspapers at the same time. This leads to a filtering down of the news, creating shared conversations based on the same biases
Democracy and the institutions that support it need an overhaul.
I think this is too idealistic. Yes it is in need of an overhaul, and yes, in reference to the above paragraph where financial crisis and climate change SHOULD have spawned a debate, it is nonetheless reality that these things have not happened. Fundamental societal issues along with political inefficiencies are the cause, and blaming one party is not the answer
Overwhelmingly, they have failed
What does the author suggest is the answer? I think it is one thing to criticize a free-market political system, and it is another to criticize and offer a solution that can realistically be applied