Peace and the Islamic State

This week I was watching Fox New and a discussion of Islam came up, it seemed like it was going to be a normal discussion but my opinion quickly changed. There were three pundits total in the discussion and they were discussing the incident in Oklahoma. A man who recently converted into Islam in Oklahoma is “suspected” of beheading a woman. The three panelist on their consisted of a normal conservative Fox News pundit who was positioned in the middle and on the left of her was another woman and on the right of the Fox News pundit was a man. Instead of focusing on the murder in Oklahoma they were actually focusing on a statement made by the Islamic civil rights and advocacy organization called CAIR. CAIR made a statement which basically denounced extremist groups like ISIS and extremist Muslims like the one in Oklahoma. What the main controversial statement however was the assertion that these forms of extremism are not all a representation of Islam and these groups simply are not Muslims at all. CAIR also went on to explain that Islam is a peaceful religion all in and all does not condone violence. The female pundit on the far left was in total disagreement with this statement she believed stated that Islam is a violent religion. She acknowledged that some groups are more extreme than others but in the core of it all Islam is violent. She also went on to mention the beheading that were performed by the prophet Muhammad. The man who was a Muslim and was on the far right did not share on beliefs but rather agreed with CAIR. I personally was not sure how far his consent with the statement went. He stated that these extreme groups should not in any way be a way representation of Muslims because just like any religion you have extremist. He went on to say that Islam was peaceful, my confusion was rather he believed they were still Muslims. The Fox News pundit based on her response felt that he was agreeing with CAIR and did not see them as Muslims. She then aggressively asked him how you can deny extremist groups as Muslims if they claim they are the same as you. She was not nearly aggressive as the pundit on the far left but she also seemed aggressive. Flipping through the other news channels that night there were a lot of Middle East stories and thus Muslim involvement. Every story I saw involved some type of violence or a negative story. Although none of the other reporting I heard discussed a direct ideological attack on Islam, I was worried about the image the media puts out. I totally believe that news needs to be reported, but the Fox News piece may have been too extreme. Do you believe that Fox News should restrict conversations such as the one they had, or is it a discussion that needs to be had?

Ukarine and The Social Media Mov

Social media has become a relevant and useful tool around the world. The uses for social media however are often underestimated.  The fight for autonomy in Ukraine from Russia has been an interesting and complex issue.  In an article by Forbes it was examining the effect social media has had on the people in Ukraine. They explained that before social media was prevalent and people were relying on electronic media, things like TV, Cassettes, and chat rooms it was highly censored.

In 2004 Ukraine controlled most of the major media outlets within the county.  Reporters had to be extremely careful of what they reported or they could be fired and possibly relegated to obscurity. The former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was viewed as an authoritarian regime, so it wasn’t surprising when allies of the Yanukovich regime began to buy up media companies and install new management.  Controlling the media has always been an authoritarian imperative.

It seems to be that social media is what truly can be a thorn in an auouthorain regime. Greg Satell a writer for Forbes talks about the change social media has brought a change to Ukraine. Satell in the article states “a new media purge began and two of my former colleagues, Vitaly Sych and Yulia McGuffie both of whom are friends I know well were told they would either have to start reporting what they were told to or they would be fired. Both resigned and most of their staff left with them. But this time they weren’t relegated to obscurity. Now, released from any restrictions of journalistic propriety, they both actively supported the protests on Facebook, not only reporting on events but actually announcing them beforehand. As two of the most prominent journalists in the country, they were immensely powerful messengers.”

As stated earlier there are many uses for social media, and many often get overlooked or underappreciated. Social media can give a voice to those who have never been able to speak before, which is a gift that Americans and so many around the world so often take for granted. With the ability to connect with so many intuitions and people speech could be considered more powerful now than ever before. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-doubt-that-social-media-has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/

My Thoughts on ISIS

Well recent events has undoubtedly changed mine and many others mind, but the first time ISIS was mentioned many people had the same reaction, they felt like ISIS was nothing special. For as long as I can remember there has always been some new or different terror organization that “is a massive threat to America”. What’s even seems more mundane is the different terminology and context words the media uses to describe extremist groups. The media tends to also use words that either don’t have an extreme emotional tie or either lumps in large groups of people (unfairly in my opinion). The media often used the word insurgents instead of calling people “rebels”, I believe it’s because many American’s have a somewhat positive connotation to the word rebel. The media also uses wide based terms to describe sets of people while just giving an elementary background of the conflict. For instance the media typically either used the words extremists, militant group, or dictatorship to describe people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Gaza. For someone who does not research or have a particular interest in conflicts in the Middle East the conflicts seem to become extremely redundant and permanent. 

I believe this phenomena with regarding media coverage of the Middle East facilitated the lack of attention towards ISIS. It was not until the beheading that public opinion drastically changed. One source found that, “While those surveyed weren’t asked directly about that event, the poll found that 94% had heard news of the two murders, a higher level of public attention than given to any of 22 news events the Journal/NBC News survey has tested since 2009,” the Wall Street Journal reported. The beheading just did not raise public awareness but also drastically changed public opinion. The Wall Street Journal has reported that nearly two-thirds of respondents believe a fight with ISIS is a necessity and only 13% said action wasn't in the national interest.

This is really alarming to me for the simple fact of how violent ISIS is from any other group from the Middle East we have had a conflict with. Obama said something very interesting in his speech to the press, but got a lot of heat. He proclaimed that ISIS is not Muslim and I could not agree more. ISIS has now killed more Muslims than Christians and are operating with such extremism that Al-Qaeda broke ties with them. Isis goes against some of the very core tenants of Islam. This makes me wonder if ISIS never beheaded the American reporters that they still may have flown under the radar of the average American still?  

Activism and General Society

I thought this week’s focus on social media activism was possibly my favorite chapter studied thus far. In the assigned reading Millennials & Activism I thought that the author Georgia Logothetis brought up interesting points about this generations perspective to activism. The main one that stuck out to me was the argument that we do not have an injustice in our generation that unites a vast range of people.  His exact words were, “politics decades ago were intensely personal – from civil rights struggles to being drafted - and there is no greater incentive for action than policies which have a direct and palpable effect on the individual other words, politics decades ago were intensely personal – from civil rights struggles to being drafted”. I do not completely agree with this, but it is hard to argue with that point.  There are definitely controversial and monumental issues in today’s society such as Gay Rights, Climate Change, and Globalization. I believe these issues are already affecting many of our lives, yet our activism still is not on par with that of the 1960’s . 

What I believe is a strong contributing factor is the type of atmosphere social media tends to create. In today’s time it so easy to get caught up in the social media frenzy that people forget what I believe to be the most effective form of activism, which I believe is still active physical demonstration. In the “Millennials & Activism” the author points out a few isolated incidents in which active marching or demonstrating was not effective, and uses it to support his belief that these forms of activism are not as effective as they once were. I totally disagree with this premise, I believe that this burden lies on us. In the sixties there were mass marches and constant demonstrations throughout the country and even heavier and certain areas. This generation seems to believe that one march or demonstration deserves instant change, when that just is not the case. It is simply too easy for people to click “like” or retweet” on a post and feel like they have done there civic duty.