When Politicians Attack

A study of the consequences of partisan communication on the stability of unified government of the United States.

Politicians and the media are natural enemies, but in recent times, the relationship has exploded into all-out war. Think about bimbo eruptions, DUI arrests, cocaine parties, National Guard service records, Swift Boat veterans. Think about two generations of Bush presidents up against Dan Rather. Think about who lost. Visit our website for sample chapters! Craig Crawford has seen it all up close and personal, and he is disturbed by what he sees. When politicians turn the public against the media, everyone loses - especially unbiased and courageous news reporting. When veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas is banished from her front row post, as she has been in the current administration, the American public is denied the chance to consider her pointed questions, even if they go unanswered. alternative media take over. Rush, the O'Reilly Factor, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, and the bloggers have their place in American politics, and the 2004 elections showed the incredible power of the Internet.

Since the early 2000s, global, underground networks of insurrectionary anarchists have carried out thousands of acts of political violence. This book is an exploration of the ideas, strategies, and history of these political actors that engage in a confrontation with the oppressive powers of the state and capital. This book challenges the reader to consider the historically ignored articulations put forth by those who communicate through sometimes violent political acts-vandalism, sabotage, arson and occasional use of explosives. These small acts of violence are announced and contextualized through written communiqués, which are posted online, translated, and circulated globally. This book offers the first contemporary history of these digitally-mediated networks, and seeks to locate this tendency within anti-state struggles from the past.

Americans tend to see negative campaign ads as just that: negative. Pundits, journalists, voters, and scholars frequently complain that such ads undermine elections and even democratic government itself. But John G. Geer here takes the opposite stance, arguing that when political candidates attack each other, raising doubts about each other’s views and qualifications, voters—and the democratic process—benefit. In Defense of Negativity, Geer’s study of negative advertising in presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2004, asserts that the proliferating attack ads are far more likely than positive ads to focus on salient political issues, rather than politicians’ personal characteristics. Accordingly, the ads enrich the democratic process, providing voters with relevant and substantial information before they head to the polls. An important and timely contribution to American political discourse, In Defense of Negativity concludes that if we want campaigns to grapple with relevant issues and address real problems, negative ads just might be the solution.

These days the truth is hard to find. If the press is not believed—or believable—because politicians have turned the public against it, then the press is not free, and without a free press, there is no democracy. Includes behind the scenes stories about reporters and politicians in conflict, an objective look at the ongoing debate over liberal and conservative bias in the news media, an engaging story of the Internet's positive and negative impact on the reliable flow of information, and a media resource guide to the best sources of objective reporting.

Ask most Americans, and they'll tell you that presidential campaigns get dirtier and more negative with every election. This text suggests that this may not be as true as we think, and shows that over the last dozen elections, negativity may have been well publicised but hasn't increased.

The ongoing News International phonehacking scandal has made abundantly clear that the media's influence over politics is both immense and largely hidden from public scrutiny. As the scandal grows, a question arises: even when they stay on the right side of the law, to what extent do the media influence the political process? In Democracy under Attack, one of the media's own--Malcolm Dean, the Guardian's long-standing chief monitor of social policy--expertly indicts his fellow journalists, revealing the ways their distorted coverage undermines democracy. Based on four decades of upperlevel UK government briefings and interviews with over one hundred senior policy makers, Democracy under Attack overflows with incisive observations and colorful stories, culminating in a damning list of the seven deadly sins of modern journalists. Dean's long experience and insider status inform his detailed and disturbing account of news production in Britain, revealing the connections between what goes on in newsrooms, lobbyists' offices, and Parliament as well as how those connections decisively shape government policy.

The classics of Western culture are out, not being taught, replaced by second-rate and Third World texts. White males are a victimized minority on campuses across the country, thanks to affirmative action. Speech codes have silenced anyone who won't toe the liberal line. Feminists, wielding their brand of sexual correctness, have taken over. These are among the prevalent myths about higher education that John K. Wilson explodes. The phrase "political correctness" is on everyone's lips, on radio and television, and in newspapers and magazines. The phenomenon itself, however, has been deceptively described. Wilson steps into the nation's favorite cultural fray to reveal that many of the most widely publicized anecdotes about PC are in fact more myth than reality. Based on his own experience as a student and in-depth research, he shows what's really going on beneath the hysteria and alarmism about political correctness and finds that the most disturbing examples of thought policing on campus have come from the right. The image of the college campus as a gulag of left-wing totalitarianism is false, argues Wilson, created largely through the exaggeration of deceptive stories by conservatives who hypocritically seek to silence their political opponents. Many of today's most controversial topics are here: multiculturalism, reverse discrimination, speech codes, date rape, and sexual harassment. So are the well-recognized protagonists in the debate: Dinesh D'Souza, William Bennett, and Lynne Cheney, among others. In lively fashion and in meticulous detail, Wilson compares fact to fiction and lays one myth after another to rest, revealing the double standard that allows "conservative correctness" on college campuses to go unchallenged.