Michelle Malkin paints herself to be the normal every day woman. In the ‘about’ section of her blog, she says she is a mother and a wife before anything else, and then adds little fun facts about herself to endear and ingratiate herself with the reader in order to gain their trust. Her blog does a good job of using fear tactics by outlining an event, using biting, humourous commentary and in turn, making the reader feel that politics is corrupt and we need to be weary of it all. It questions issues and everyday events with sly, witty comments to make us question our trust in the government. While at first glance, it looks like she is encouraging the audience to think for themselves, we feel that her underlying message is to get us to trust her because she’s pointing it all out to us by establishing her authority in the matter and voicing concerns. She is really just trying to sway us to her side by undermining the side she is criticizing. What do you think?
I mainly focused on the bloggers post "Bitter Half Watch: Mrs. O needs you to clean the “spirits” around her" which was the one discussing Michelle Obama's interview about prayers being made for her husband and family. I feel like this post is very biased and agree with the facillitators for this week that Malkin seems to not really be having people think for themselves, but rather her views. I'm sure Malkin picks to show the part of the interview that can make the meaning of the words into something they weren't intended to be, and then basically bashes each phrase in it. However, note that she does an accurate job in persuading and selling her views. After reading many of the 77 comments for this post, I realize that almost all of them are strongly agreeing with Malkin. Malkin's strategies in taking individual parts of Michelle Obama's quotes and putting a spin on them really works. Even I almost felt differently about the quote after reading Malkin's breakdown of it.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to option number 7. I didn't like this blog very much because it talks about politics and I'm not really a fan of politics. I do however think that this is an effective blog. Almost every blog entry has between 20 and 100 comments, some even more. If that's not proof that this blog reaches people then I don't know what is. Almost every blog entry is about the Obamas and/or democratis issues. This gives readers the opportunity to voice their opinions about different issues through comments. "Bitter Half Watch: Mrs. O needs you to clean the “spirits” around her" is the most recent blog. All comments seem to be negative and all commenters seem to feed off of each others comments because they generally have the same opinions. I think this blog reaches its readers very well and is very effective.
ReplyDeleteA good question to ask about any blog that you read is "Does this blog actually do anything to make me think?" As opposed to last week's blog, this blog does a much better job of not being blatantly biased towards one side, which makes it much easier to think about the topic at hand. While Malkin's opinions are definitely prevelant in her writing ("Ah. Forget it. Being the 'most powerful woman in the world' means never having to apologize for one's galactic hubris" is one example), it is evident that she at least tries to write for both sides. Being completely unbiased is impossible, and if you don't have at least somewhat of an opinion, it is hard to persuade people to read your work. However, Malkin takes a definite stance on an issue, while also presenting the facts (many times she includes the actual quotes from people such as Michelle Obama so that the reader may also analyze what Mrs. Obama really meant for themselves), which is what last week's blog lacked.
ReplyDeleteThis blog also makes an attempt to involve the reader in the discussion. A major difference in this week's blog from The Pirates Cove is the number of comments in response to an article. An active discussion often takes place under Malkin's posts, and isn't that part of the purpose of writing a blog? Also, Malkin's frequent polls at the end of her posts are another way that she attempts to involve the reader. With experience writing a blog myself, I know that the best way to get people to come to your blog is to offer some type of reader interaction. If people feel like they are also voicing their opinions, then they will come back and listen to what the writer has to say. With that being said, the answer to the original question I posed would be "yes".
I am responding to number seven. I looked specifically at the blog called "Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate again, according to... Joe Biden." The blog had a quote from Biden insinuating Obama asked him to run with him again. The blogger implies that he thinks that this is a terrible idea, comparing the current Obama/Biden government to the Titanic and them running again to Titanic ll. The responses to the blog pull quotes from the blog to agree with them. Every comment agrees with the writer on how ridiculous they think Biden is. This shows they have many of the same values that the writer does. They also use the same sort of sarcasm that the writer does throughout many of the comments. Very few of the responses are very serious. They take on the same sarcastic tone that the writer, showing his influence on the responders. All of the comments seem to be negative towards Obama and Biden, overall. Just like the blog. I think this shows the effect not only the writer but the bloggers also have on the blog as a whole. No one else clearly feels comfortable to comment on this blog with an opposing view.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Michelle Malkin has an influence on her readers and fellow bloggers, however, despite having a similar political stance to her, her approach doesn't fancy my point of view. The article on the first page about Mrs. Obama seems very unprofessional and somewhat rude; she twisted Mrs. Obama's words around. Example: "Ask not what your prayer circle can do for you. Ask what your prayer circle can do for my husband." I feel as though Michelle Obama was simply thanking and asking those praying to continue praying for her husband, and every president should be prayed for because of the position he's in. Michelle Malkin's demeanor and attitude towards this topic could easily be interpreted as offensive to religious people. I agree with Group 2's thoughts on what she is trying to do. She injects direct quotations into her blogs for "you to interpret" but continues to heavily criticize her target, in this case Michelle Obama, with every opportunity she gets.
ReplyDelete'“Keeping the spirits clean around us?” Huh? She sounds like the liberal caricature of Christine O’Donnell. Bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble.' She's got jokes too.
I read the post "Bitter Half Watch: Mrs. O Needs You to Clean The "Spirits" Around You" which was about Michelle Obama acknowledging the prayers for her family that happen daily. Malkin makes the comment seem out of bad taste but I'm sure if the context around it was revealed it would just be a first lady talking about her husband and thanking their black voters for wanting to keep him in office. However I do feel that Malkin has the power over her readers and it is very obvious in the comments back, some even going so far as to say that she broke laws by engaging in a political discussion in a polling place! First off, who cares? There were no polls going on and she was asked a question. Another commenter goes so far as to talk about the type of shoes she purchases and wore at the polling place. Again, WHO CARES? Yeah, she has money so does every other first lady in all of history and every other president throughout history. How do they think you get elected in the first place? I found this blog a little annoying because most of the comments were focused around things that didn't matter and bashing the first lady, who I feel really has absolutely nothing to do with her husband's campaign and should never really be criticized because her husband's policies aren't hers.
ReplyDeleteI mainly focus on the article “Union members speak up on coerced political spending”. From my point of view, I believe Michelle Malkin emphasized a good point---our union cannot represent their people’s views especially on political issues. This is such a hot topic that makes readers form a discussion below. It seems that each comment agrees with Michelle’s opinion simply because they are all some sort of facing the same problem. However, a majority of the comments shared their tough stories with the union but a few of them responded to the solution Michelle pointed out which was setting laws about paycheck protection. Personally, I think setting law will work but the reason why it did not make much sense could be the problem of efficiency and capability.
ReplyDeleteMichelle successfully let people form a fear of thinking how much money a person was charged coercively and probably even affected the relationship between the staffs and their union. But the thing we should do is coming up with efficient solutions.
In response to 7:
ReplyDeleteThis blog does one thing: It fires people up. The blog seems to exaggerate everything that goes on; the good of Republicans and the bad of Democrats. I'd say her blog is working. She is reaching the people she wants, the ones that agree with her. She may even be reaching Democrats. Judging by some comments it seems a few are from Democrats who are defending their party.
So no matter how biased and incorrect her blog is, it works. Now, I'm not saying Republicans are wrong or that Democrats are right. I'm only stating the fact that this blog is effective.
In response to number 6. I liked the article "public enemy number one: GOP donors". It discussed how liberals are targeting GOP donors with harassment and threats to help dissuade donations. I thought it was kind of crazy how far they were going to go to keep people from donating. Readers seem to have responded positively to the article but chances are since the blog is read by mostly conservatives then most will probably like the right-winged opinion. The author does cite several sources of the websites made by the people organizing the harassing.
ReplyDeleteI will be responding to the prompt #1.
ReplyDeleteAfter analyzing the interface of the blog it seems to give off the air of trying to be rather professional looking. The logo on the top features the name of the blog with a pen separating the two words. This is an important inclusion because the pen symbolizes many things such as: education and free speech. Though the ads on the right hand side of the page do not seem to fit in with the rest of the design and some of the thumbnails for the blog posts seem to be a little counter productive for the message she is trying to send. An example of this would be the cartoon chicken on the post of "Democrat Chicken Dance Award of the Day: Russ Carnahan". If the author would like to be taken seriously, she may want to consider removing these types of things.
after read this blogger, im going to repinse to number7. it is totally a political web-site. of course it tells us lots news about political, and also its trying to influence us to think and stand on its side. tell people some they do not know and use it to let people mad with government. this thing maybe truth, and also it maybe wrong. we cannot find anything to prove it, but also we cannot say that wrong. some of us would be changed because this news. the only one thing we should know. our government give us wages, give us peace, and also gives us space to have our own think. so it cannot influence my mind, maybe others.
ReplyDeleteI am especially interest about the post “Public Enemy Number One: GOP donors”. As we all know, the word “Enemy” is a severe word. I wonder why the writer used such a word, dose she just wants to draw people’s attentions, in other words, emphasizes the dread? After reading this post, I truly shocked by those examples Michelle Malkin set. For instance, Malkin states that Matzzie once claimed that warning letter just the their first step about threating those donors, furthermore, the poor donors might be “giving a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives”. How particular the treat is! I could not imagine that if I was a sponsor, could I endure such pressure? On the other side, the utilization of numbers also impressed me a lot. When the numbers came out, not only can remain an impression of how concrete as well as accurate this example is, but also bring a direct shock to the audiences. All in all, if those phenomena are facts, the treat to the donors is truly a horrible issue to the politics in US, as one of the comments “it would affect the fair of the policy”. Even “Disclosure” is probably a scandal; to bear the consequence also could not become an easy thing.
ReplyDeleteResponding to prompt #7
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the articles within this Michelle Malkins blog, I find the website to be quite helpful and informative. Unlike some of the previous blogs where some partitions may lack factual evidence, most of the articles within Malkin's blog contains past histories and records and factual cited information. This not only provide authenticity but also proves to the reader that the author knows what she is talking about and has put time and research into each one of her posts. I also liked the fact that her blog not only includes the political "bashing" that we see many times during political shows, but also has interesting information such as "Oprah Pays For Stewart/Colbert Audience to Attend Rally." It displays positive side of politics along with the negative, which makes this blog itself very believable.
Prompt number 1 response: The visual themes of this blog seems to be very professional. A very organized blog that is very easy to follow. Sadly I had to look up on google whether or not Michelle Malkin was an actual person. From here I understood most of her blogs. She is a very conservative blogger and she seems to definatley bash democrats. However, on the home page I like the art work for her title. Its her name with a pen in the middle of it. The pen may represent that she is an educated woman or possibly justifying blogs as much of an art as physically writing. Found it interesting that on most of the articles on the blog had people with the same ideas. Example a Michelle Malkin writes an article dealing with the chamber of commerce and it shows a related article written by Doug powers stating almost the same exact political views.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 7 in the article "Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate again...as said by Joe Biden." In the article Joe Biden implies that Obama asked him to be his running mate for the next upcoming election in 2012. Obama just actually asks Biden if he is running again. Of course Biden wants to run again. The author just tries to make a point that they should still be thinking about the end of this term before, as the author states, they devise a plan for "Titanic II."
ReplyDelete