User:Ekraft14/sandbox



From budgeting needs to educating the public, the media has its hand in nearly every aspect of the United States bureaucracy. The relationship between the media and the Bureaucracy works both ways. Government agencies use the media as an outlet to educate the public on new policy and as a way to build their image among constituents, whereas media outlets use inside bureaucratic intelligence to get big scoops and make headline news. The media can often help bureaucracy when it needs to reach the public, but it can also shame and mar bureaucrats' reputations when they fall short of expectations. In response to the media's power the U.S. government has created acts to control media outlets.

Enhance image and build support
In order to foster public opinion in support for an agency or its policies, the bureaucracy can use the media to show the public what it is doing to make their lives better. Political actors participate in the media to communicate with the public that holds the power to re-elect them; to communicate with each other; to achieve publicity; and to be seen. When individuals are able to see the positive work that an agency is doing, they will likely favor that agency over one they have little to no information about. Agencies foster public support by cooperating with reporters but guiding them toward information and framing subjects boosting their image. It is more than just news media; films and television shows that wish to use military equipment, and therefore must cooperate with the Department of Defense, they often must depict the DOD in a positive manner in order to get the cooperation they need.

Justify budget and necessity
Bureaucratic agencies can also use the media to help show congress that it is doing its job well, therefore the budget that it receives is justified. When the agency is performing well, congress and the President need not interfere. For the most part, agencies wanted as much autonomy as possible, so the fact that they can show how well they are doing, without ever directly contacting the politicians in charge of them, is a huge plus.

Educate public about policy
Members of the bureaucracy will use media outlets to inform the public about new policies: how the policy will help them, and what they need to do in order to comply with the changes.

Get headline stories
The most basic feature of news is the requirement to be first or on time with a breaking story. Media outlets are always competing against one another to get news to the public first, and to have the biggest and best story so they will land the front page. This usually means having the most access to high ranking individuals in agencies. The media has to cooperate with the bureaucracy in order to get this information. To land a front-page or lead story, they stress the importance of the agency’s policy area within their news organizations. However, to get the information that impresses editors and producers, reporters must rely on the input of top officials. There is a stressed need for reliable sources within the media, otherwise the word of the reporter becomes null and uninformative, giving the agency they work for a bad reputation for reporting on false information.

Get insight into new policy
Another large part of media's job on reporting about bureaucracy is policy. The reporters gain important vital information on any new policy changes and or on new policies. Usually, some form of media is the first to report on policy changes and debates. Thus making it necessary for them to provide reliable information as well as to "beat" each other out in order to release the first update. As much as media helps to inform its' viewers of policy changes, it also helps to breakdown the policy in order to be understood. With all the different forms of media out there, there are as many view points on a policy.

Expose scandals involving bureaucrats
The pentagon papers is a top secret study conducted by the pentagon concerning the decision-making during the Vietnam war. The papers were leaked to eighteen publications by Daniel Ellsberg, an employee working for the RAND Corporation, and on June 13, 1971 the Times published 9 excerpts of 7,000 pages collection. Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchel l demanded that the Times halt its publication, when the Times refused the government filed a suit against the publication. New York Times Co. v. United States made its way to the Supreme Court, but in the appellate court the Times was ordered to temporarily halt its publication, this was first time since Abraham Lincoln's administration that a major newspaper was restrained. The Supreme court ruled in favor of the New York Times, citing the First Amendment's freedom of the press. Ellsberg got the attention of two sympathetic US senators J. William Fulbright and George McGovern, urging them to release the documents on the senate floor, as Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution states that a representative can't be prosecuted for anything said on the debate floor. On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska received the papers from Ben Bagdikian an editor at the Washington Post and entered 4,100 pages of the pentagon paper into the record to his subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. The Nixon administration attempted to cover-up its involvement and resisted the U.S. Congress' investigation. Congress issued articles of impeachment once congress discovered Nixon's abuse of power, which included bugging the offices  political opponents and harassing political figure and groups with federal government agencies. Facing removal Richard Nixon became the fist president to ever resign from office on August 9, 1974. When an agency does not do its job correctly, for example FEMA during Huricane Katrina, congress can see what needs to be changed in order to help the agency perform better in future situations.The media also plays a huge role in how the government is viewed during times of natural disasters. This can easily be seen through the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. There was much news coverage over what was going on, who was doing what, and on who wasn't doing what they should have been. Causing a uproar from everyone in the United States against the government, as they decided on what to do in order to help the people in Louisiana as well as who should do it. The blame was put on the government for its inactivity.

Outcomes of Exposure
Most news organizations are for-profit, which can lead to "yellow journalism" in which the organization runs sensationalistic headlines to catch the attention of the viewer and improve ratings, many times it involves exaggerations, scandals, fear, or sexual imagery. This type of journalism can contain little to no well-researched information, and many consider it unprofessional and unethical. Media influence the political agenda by emphasizing certain issues while ignoring others, which give prominence to some of the media courage on the public concerning their policy” In the court of public opinion - in which media is the prosecutor, judge and decision maker - politicians are placed in a difficult situation. On one hand, they are part of the political establishment which has been blamed for all societal faults. On the other, they understand the power of the media and their need to influence and shape public opinion in their favor. Therefore, bureaucrats and politicians try to gain access to media by making themselves presentable and dissociating themselves from political institutions and politics in Washington and political organizations. Consequently, politicians, in order to please the media and win their favor, instead of defending the government and politics which are constantly under attack, point at bureaucracy and other government institutions as real villains.

Media and Foreign Policy
Media’s effect on foreign policy began gaining notice during the Cold War and has continued on since. What the media reports, the people of the United States hear and see, then form an opinion about how the government is operating. In return, the government heavily relies on such information in order to come up with decisions that will please the people. This influence became known as the "CNN Effect"; this term was chosen due to the network channel and how it brought important news on what was happening to the people of the United States as well as how it impacted government decisions. With all the new ways of getting information out to the public, it forces the increase of deciding on a policy and putting it into action. Though this can be viewed as a good thing, it can also be hindering to the government in that it forces them to quickly make a decision, possibly without having all the necessary information.. Another negative effect of such thorough "live time" coverage is that if governments do not act, they are seen as not taking care of the situation, or being lax on a certain topic.

As time moves on, new technology appears and is used to provide information on the ins' and outs' of the government. Media is able to provide real time information, as it is occurring, whether it be in the United States or in another country. This ability to spread information so quickly helps the United States communicate with governments that otherwise we would have no contact with. The time for censuring what and how it is being released is progressively changing.

Government acts to control information
The Alien and Sedition Acts was passed in 1798 by the federalist party and signed by President John Adams, as a result of the a Quasi-war with France shortly after the French Revolution. Three of the laws dealt with Imigration, imprisonment and Deportation of aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States". The fourth law is the Sedition Act of 1918, arguably the most controversial one as it restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. The acts have yet to be repealed, however are considered invalid as the supreme court would likely deem it unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was pass just after the U.S. entered WWI, to bar anyone from interfering with military recruitment or operations. In 1918 the Sedition Act (Espionage Act) was expanded further to restrict any expression that might shed a negative light on the flag, armed forces, and government. This was a temporary measure only effective when the U.S. is at war, the act was repealed on December 13, 1920, but the 1917 version remains in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1919 with the case Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate freedom of speech. Whistleblowers, most notably Daniel Ellsberg of the pentagon papers, Chelsea Manning a former U.S. soldier, and Edward Snowden an NSAcontractor are some of the most high-profile American to be charged under the Espionage Act.

How Bureaucracy Uses the Media

 * Enhance image/ build support
 * Justify budget
 * Show necessity of the agency
 * Educate public about policy

How the Media Uses Bureaucracy

 * Get headline stories
 * Get insight into new policy

When the Media Exposes Bureaucracy

 * Expose fraud, waste, and abuse by agencies
 * Find scandals involving bureaucrats
 * Extensively covers accidents cause by bureaucratic failure

Outcomes of Exposure

 * It is possible the media overemphasized the problem to gain news coverage
 * Informs public on how agencies are performing
 * Causes public hysteria
 * Allows bureaucracy to make changes to meet citizens expectations

Possible Negatives

 * Demands instant analysis from the government
 * Causes public hysteria/ Emotional Inhibitor
 * Operational security threat
 * No guarantee the media is showing 100% of story

Possible Positives
Ekraft14 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Get message out immediately
 * Communication between governments that have no diplomatic relations
 * Holds government accountable to citizens

Evaluation of Propaganda in the United States
Propaganda is the use of public information such as posters, radio, news articles, or television to influence the opinions and actions of citizens. The United States' government started the wide spread use propaganda during world War I to influence civilians to support the war effort and keep the financial cost of war down. Since then, government spread propaganda has been used to influence opinions on wars, both internationally and culturally. This article is currently rated as Start Class which I feel is appropriate. The article hits the high points of the topic, but fails to give a deeper understanding of how propaganda works in the US. Further examples of propaganda from various wars should be added, and the use of propaganda by the Ad Council, FBI, and IBB should be expanded. Wars fought internationally and domestically (war on drugs, guns, information, education ,etc) should be separated. The article fails to give examples of any domestic wars aside from the war on drugs. The article does a pretty good job of controlling biases, the information seems to be straightforward and un-opinionated. There are several good sources in the article at this point, but more need to be added for the topics about the FBI and IBB. More links to examples of propaganda (videos, posters) should be added to give the reader a further understanding of specific propaganda used throughout American History. Ekraft14 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the “When Media Exposes Bureaucracy” section of the article, the information is good but it needs to be ordered and organized better so the reader can easily retain the information. It feels as if that section is going on a fact rant and just throwing examples at the readers face in a long and tedious fashion. A good structure for this section would be to separate the examples of how the media exposes bureaucracy by paragraph and chronologically order them. So aside from some structuring and organization technicalities the article is overall informative and non-biased.Ekraft14 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness

Details	Notes

a. Content •	Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? •	What are the key points of the article as you understand them? •	Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates? •	Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? b. Thesis and analytic focus •	Does the article focus on a clear topic? •	Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? c. Representativeness •	Does the contribution consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? •	Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? •	Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately?

It does a great job of discussing media in the lead paragraph, but maybe use this as the Umbrella of the article…include a glimpse of pros/cons and include talk about bureaucracy.

How the media and bureaucracy use each other and the roles each one has in the other’s job. Also includes pros/cons of including media in bureaucracy

Outline could be adjusted: Negatives about media is at the end and could be seen as favoring media instead of an unbias article

yes

Yes, Media in Bureaucracy

Yes

I believe so

yes

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

Details	Notes

•	Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? •	How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? •	Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? •	Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? •	Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?

It looks great and well cited; however, I don’t personally know the ins and outs of the citation process. I will choose not to comment because I know there is still time to fix this in the “Finishing Touches” phase.

But to the naked eye, citations look good and professional…very Wiki- like

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Details	Notes

•	Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? •	Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? •	Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? •	How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? If I didn’t know any better, I would think it is a little PRO media in bureaucracy…

It is kind of hard NOT to promote media when it is all around us.

Even in our book, when discussing media in politics, there was still no common ground.

The “No” section still understood the gains of using media

It isn’t particularly well- balanced

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

Details	Notes

a. Language •	How well written is the entry? •	Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? •	Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? •	Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? •	Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? b. Organization and style Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?

•	Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? •	Are the paragraphs well structured? c. Formatting •	Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia?

Article Titles: The first letter of a title is capitalized, but not the first letter of secondary words.

Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings?

Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? d. Illustrations •	Does the article include appropriate images where possible? •	Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? •	Are the images appropriately captioned?

Don’t abbreviate “U.S.” UNLESS it is first written as “United States of America (the U.S.)” to let readers know what the abbreviation stands for.

There is some difficult wording…sentences could use some restructure to improve readability

Using “they” in sentence too much could lose meaning…try referring back to the actual group more

What is written is formatted…I would suggest maybe remapping the formation of article headings

Still using a lot of bullet points but Understandable for rough draft

n/a

Open-ended feedback Questions Open-ended Questions

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I think it’s amazing you created the article from scratch! It must have been difficult to start from group zero.

Great job for putting so much information together and sharing it with the world!

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs?

Work on structure/layout of the article the organization of headings/subheadings

Paragraphs vary in length and don’t appeal to the average eye. Try cutting out information that isn’t necessary in long paragraphs or find more information for short paragraphs to really make them look “equal” in length.