Manipulative Media

UID: 113885013

GVPT 200

Professor Shirk 

28 September 2014

                 Manipulative Media

            The power of a state is commonly related to the military, economics, or the states security; however, in America the media has evolved from a relative power to an absolute power.  This power has direct influence on our government’s elections, the public opinion of recent events, what products to buy, and social interactions among men and women.  I believe the power of the media is detrimental to how we think and act amongst each other; we must interpret the media more strategically to clearly understand the message that is being presented.  

            Television is the most common medium for media's control.  When you turn on your favorite program half of the time slot is commercials of products, upcoming movie trailers, or anything that a consumer can purchase.  Remarkably, the capacity of media can influence the public’s view of beauty and subconsciously mislead men and women to buy these products.  Such as axe body spray for men, which has tailored their commercials to manipulate men that if you smell like their product that women will undeniably give you social attention.  For example, when males browse television and see multiple ads displaying the “axe effect”, there is one ad that has an innumerable horde of women running, swimming, and fighting to get the center of the beach.  These women have various shades of long flowing hair and are wearing revealing bikinis’ and apparently suit the stereotype of an attractive woman.  Meanwhile, in the middle of the beach is one guy with an average body type and an exhilarated look upon his face spraying two cans of axe spray all over his body.  Apparently, the commercial’s message is trying to present that if a male consumer uses axe body spray thousands of women would will run toward him or want him in some way. 

            On the contrary, a woman will see a limitless amount of commercials that influence their purchasing of beauty products for hair; by which, misleads their viewpoint of what hair should look like.  I would like to point out the commercials that specifically target having long draping hair.  In the majority of these commercials you will see actress twirling their long silky smooth hair and repeatedly expressing how beautiful they look because of the condition of their hair.  In reality, not all women can have the hair presented in the commercial or cannot afford the expensive products that are advertised.  Therefore, the advertisements reinforce that having perfectly flowing silky smooth hair will make you feel good about you self.   

            The power of media directly attacks the public’s perception by displaying men and women as objects and one would be happy if he/she can imitate what is seen.  Generally, America’s media informs the public of local, national, and world news.  As well as, entertaining friends and family and generate good conversation topics.  Nevertheless, commercials affect not just what we purchase, but how we feel as a person and how we see each other.  I encourage everyone to buy any product you would like that is advertised on television; by the same token, do not allow the arbitrary power of the media to hinder your ability to watch, think, act and consume strategically to make your self happy.  

The Constructivist Strategy to Defeat ISIS

As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria continues to hold their territory they have captured in Iraq and Syria a comprehensive plan must be formed to eliminate the threat they pose to the international community. By viewing this conflict through the lens of Realist Constructivism we are able to see the hostilities raised by ISIS through the creation of the other, the power politics necessary to maintain their state and ultimately the need for regional allies and enemies alike to band together.  By creating an Islamic Caliphate all infidels become the other.  

            ISIS fighters are vicious and have an extreme dedication to the creation and preservation of an Islamic state. Through their ferocity they were able to take the city of Mosul that was defended by 30,000 Iraqi soldiers with a mere force of 800 fighters. The Iraqi army was so terrified of ISIS they abandoned the city. While it may seem surprising that such a small force was capable of this feat the factors were always in ISIS’s favor. ISIS was able to get many of their fighters from the discontent created by the Iraqi government. The Shiites in the government excluded most Sunnis from holding public offices creating resentment of the Sunnis who felt discriminated against. ISIS took advantage by first painting the Iraqi government as the enemy that must be toppled at all cost to preserve the Sunni strain of Islam. After their gains in Iraq they painted the rest of the world that did not believe in their specific fundamentalist strain of Islam as the enemy that must be crushed for Allah. When the U.S entered the fight and began to create a coalition for defeating ISIS it only further inflamed more arabs to join the fighters. No one wants the Great Devil, the U.S, to reengage in Iraq. ISIS fighters are will stop at nothing to secure and preserve their state against the infidels.

            ISIS realizes that the preservation of their caliphate is dependent on the relative gains that they continue to achieve. As powerful as ISIS’s fighters are they are no match for the full force of a highly trained military. By taking territory city by city they are able to entrench and repel enemy forces. By only taking small portions of the surrounding countries they are able to prevent a massive retaliation from any of the other nations. By playing smart power politics they are able to make relative gains in all the surrounding countries while preserving their main force.

            The U.S’s current plan will never be to root out ISIS. For every fighter we kill two more will take the persons place. A western led coalition is too easy a target for ISIS to demonize. The proper solution would be to get the local countries around the caliphate to invade the Islamic state. Only regional power will be able to effectively rout ISIS and turn local opinion against them. The Western powers would still be able to fund their armies but U.S troops cannot be involved. Only once countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran actually contribute a significant amount troops, which Iran has started to do, can ISIS be truly stopped.

By understanding the tactics ISIS is using to recruit and stay in power we can start to use their own tactics against them. Constructivists understand that ISIS is uniting their forces by making the West and those who do not share their extreme views the other and continuing to gain territory by making relative gains in Iraq and Syria. By making a local coalition to fight ISIS the U.S can prevent more recruitment and roll back their gains with one large invasion force of Arab countries.

The Realist Arms Race: Solar Flight

Realist philosophers operate on the idea that it’s a dog eat dog world. That everyone is always building up their power to take you down and the only way you have to protect yourself is to compete in the race. This leads to the inevitable arms race. Because there is no cooperation between states there is no communication, and without communication there is no knowledge of what the pursuit of technology is for. Popular scenarios include the sake of science, better quality of life, or for war.

            While I generally do not find realism the most enticing philosophy to explain international relation and international policy formation, I do feel it is very relevant to countries which have opposing philosophies and, to put it concisely, are in a bit of a power struggle. I feel both of these are true with the United States and the United Arab Emirates. While there is no physical military struggle, Abu Dhabi and Dubai remain to be bases in the Middle East where some of most technological advances happen and is also a major oil and natural gas exporter, ranking in the top 10 consistently. The US is a power, yes, but a major consumer and player in the Middle Eastern oil companies, regulations, and politics. The UAE is investing quite obviously in renewable energy and experimenting with fuel efficient cities as well as using solar and wind energy to replace large consumers rather that the single-family-house approach that US citizens are taking. This being said, I think the realist belief that an arms race is a natural course, I do not think it is blind or out of fear, but perhaps more of a power play.

            The most recent invention which is gearing up for major publicity is Abu Dhabi’s all-solar plane which is set to fly around the world in stretches as long as 120 hours. The plane made major news last year when the single-seater flew for a full day straight. The second edition will be the next global step toward reducing, and possibly relieve, all airplane exhaust which currently plagues the atmosphere. The UAE-based company Masdar is the backing for the Swiss company Solar Impulse which are coming together to engineer this potentially world-altering invention.

            The pilots of Solar Impulse did their first test fly across the contiguous United States, harnessing interest then and keeping engineers here and abroad aware of the invention that may well prompt rails and cargo ships to utilize the same technology and reduce emissions. In my eyes, that would be a global achievement. So I’m going to go ahead and label this arms race to be the most fuel conscious and efficient to be a good thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/world/meast/abu-dhabis-newest-record-solar-powered-flight/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

Inability of Theories to Explain Terrorist Groups

So far in class we have been learning about three different theories in international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. As we have been learning about the different characteristics of these theories, I have thought about their ability to explain international relations in today’s world. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that these theories are insufficient in explaining how states can deal with the terrorist groups that dictate a large portion of international relations in the 21^st century.

The first theory that we learned about is realism, a theory that believes that self-interested states with anarchy eventually lead to conflict. One important aspect of this theory is that the only actors in international relations are states. This presents a crucial problem in relation to terrorist groups. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are by no means considered states, and therefore from a realist perspective these groups are not worth worrying about for great powers such as the United States and Great Britain. However, these terrorist groups have proven to be just as (and possible even more) threatening than other states, and therefore it is important that we do worry about them. Furthermore, ever since 9/11 the US has been in a “War on Terror;” the realist theory would be unable to explain why a great power such as the United States is spending so many resources fighting against non state actors such as terrorist groups.

The second theory that we learned about is liberalism, a theory that believes in both states and institutions being the actors in international relations. A distinctive characteristic of liberalism is that bargaining will lead to cooperation, and that rational agents strive for cooperation in order to have mutual benefits. The whole idea of cooperation doesn’t work with terrorist groups in the 21^st century. Firstly, the US and many other western countries have claimed that they refuse to negotiate with terrorists. Secondly, even if they did agree to negotiations, it would be challenging for western states to cooperate with these terrorist groups that have no unification and act irrationally. Due to its emphasis on negotiations and cooperation, the liberal theory cannot explain alternative ways in which great powers can interact with terrorist groups.

The third theory that we learned about is constructivism, a theory that focuses on ideas and a contingent history rather than military power or cooperation. Constructivism also emphasizes that the world is social constructed, and therefore norms play an important role in international relations (even though norms are constantly changing over time). In the 21^st century, devotion to human rights and justice has become a norm in much of the world. In assuming that humanitarian rights has become an important norm, how can constructivism explain terrorist groups’ complete disregard for human rights? Supporting suicide bombing and violent discrimination against minorities by no means correlate with humanitarian rights, and therefore constructivism cannot explain why terrorists continue to act against this norm.

       While realism, liberalism, and constructivism can explain many different aspects of international relations, when it comes to the problem of terrorist groups in the 21^st century, I think that these theories are strongly lacking. However, the inability of these theories to explain the extreme influence of terrorist groups could be explained by the fact that terrorist groups are a pretty recent addition to international relations. While these theories didn’t previously need to worry about the presence of terrorist groups, perhaps they now need to be updated, or even a new theory needs to be created, to help explain the recent phenomenon of terrorist groups in the 21^st century.