15$ Minimum Wage

 

    Should the minimum wage be raised?  It's a question that's been asked for as long as I've been in the workforce.  The minimum wage hasn't been raised since 2009.  And you may be asking yourself, how does this relate to media?  Well, I'm here to argue that the media is the driving force behind the minimum wage bill that is now being voted on.

Minimum Wage Attacked

Minimum Wage Defense

There's never really been a clear answer.  In true Fairness Doctrine fashion, there are economists arguing both sides of the issue.

However, the winner in terms of changing the narrative here is the group Fight for 15.

In 2012 200 fast-food workers went on strike to demand a higher minimum wage, and the issue has been shoved to the front of public discourse ever since.

Hillary Clinton endorsed it

Bernie Sanders endorsed it

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing it

And the fight for 15 protests did that.  Now that, is media influencing politics.

Indian woman's political toolkit outted on twitter: faces sedition charges

 This story I found particularly interesting as it follows a pattern I am seeing more and more in recent years.  Government crackdowns against social media usage.

"Indian police have charged a 22-year-old climate activist with sedition over accusations she edited and circulated a document tweeted by climate activist Greta Thunberg relating to India’s ongoing farmer protests.

Swedish climate activist Thunberg tweeted her backing this month for the farmers, who have been demonstrating since December against agricultural reforms they say will harm their livelihood but benefit large corporations. She shared a document which she said was a toolkit to create and spread awareness about the farmers’ complaints."

As we have talked about in class, social media is in many ways replacing or altering the media landscape.  This applies to the political sphere as well, if not more so.  Rather than organizing in newsletters, people do it on message boards.  Rather than meeting up with Fred from the bar, organizing is happening with people from across the world who have never met.  Governments are having a hard time keeping up with all this new technology, and new methods of private communications.  So increasingly, governments are just making the price of dissent so steep as to act as a deterrent.

“Delhi police’s actions are all the more sinister because Disha was taken to Delhi with no disclosure about her whereabouts, not even to her parents, an action that can be termed extrajudicial abduction,” read a statement by the Coalition for Environmental Justice in India.

Delhi chief minister Arwind Kejriwal, who has backed the farmers’ protests, called Ravi’s arrest “an unprecedented attack on Democracy. Supporting our farmers is not a crime.”

 "police said the campaign material was aimed at waging a cultural war against the government and creating divisions among various groups in Indian society."

It's vaguely reminiscent of the Noam Chomsky material we read this week.  Going against the elite power structures is bad for those held in positions of prominence by those power structures.  New technology is just allowing people to educate and motivate each other from across the globe.

To me, it is hard to view incidents like these as anything but dystopic.  It both inspires and concerns me for the future of new media.

Article Link

Biden Administration's Policies Push Marijuana Stock

     Can perception, what is said in the media, have a direct impact on policies?  That is essentially the thrust of this class.  How, and what, the media chooses to report puts a spotlight on can topple empires, or construct them.  That in tandem with "what is the media", which are both covered in my topic for this week.

Reddit.

or Wall Street.

and Weed?

It's a weird time to be in politics.

So by now, I'm sure everyone has heard of the Reddit/Gamestop fiasco.  It has been non-stop covered by practically everyone, so I won't directly focus on that.  But there is a related, lesser-known news story that caught my eye.  Marijuana  The thrust of the issue is basically this.  Some of those Reddit folks who fomented a full-on financial rebellion against hedge funds are now throwing their weight behind marijuana companies.  You know how they say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes?  Throwing your money behind a cause you support is nothing new.  Boycotting in America precedes the country itself.

  But using the stock market to try and influence policy?  Now that, I haven't seen before.  This is using media to influence politics at its finest.  All you have to do if you agree, to join the cause, is buy a stock.  You can do it from the comfort of your home.  I get the impression that this group of people who may or may not be doing this for the first time Occupy Wall Street, are onto something truly revolutionary.  Or dangerous.  Probably both.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and her media persona

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has increasingly come under fire this week as allegations and evidence regarding her alleged past belief in conspiracy theories have come up.  Throughout the week there have been calls for her to resign from democrats, and calls for their republican counterparts to denounce her.

Just last night Mitch McConnell came out and did just that(although without naming her specifically).

Now that we have the head of the Republicans in congress siding against her, it is a little more clear, but throughout the week I was curious what the coverage was saying about her on the other side of the aisle so I cruised on over to Fox news to take a look.

Differing media coverage and slant is nothing new.  This is something I have learned from the material in this class, general life experience, and most importantly, historical analysis. 

On the MSNBC side, the criticisms are harsh calling her beliefs "dangerous and unhinged" and claiming she tried to portray herself as the victim.  MSNBC

Fox News interestingly enough also declined to defend her past beliefs.  But reframed the argument to say "well what about rep. Illhan Omar's antisemetic remarks?"  Fox News

To me, this is just mudslinging.  Which is interesting, but nothing new and will be forgotten to history.  The question that it ultimately brought to my mind is about past beliefs.  It is pretty well understood in the internet era that anything you say online will ultimately come back to haunt you ,Kevin Hart.

I'm curious where that line is.  If it is far enough back, and the past beliefs are mild enough, most people will give you a pass.  But where is that line, where it is a bridge too far?  How does wielding a postion of power move that line?  For example, if a person made racist jokes twenty years ago but changed their tune.  Are they automatically disqualified from holding any public office?  Would that change if they were in prison and did it for safety?  How would it change if that person were running for president?  Will the norms adjust over time for this new reality of everything you say is never washed away?  How will history view these incidents?