Skip to main content

Home/ Dr. Friedman's AP Government/ Group items tagged speech

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
bennordpaskin

What Key Players Say About Netanyahu's Speech -- NYMag - 2 views

nymag.com/...y-about-netanyahus-speech.html

White-house netanyahu speech elections jews iran

shared by bennordpaskin on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • He went on to argue, however, that, despite this, he could not stay silent while Iran remained a threat to his country. He believes the agreement as currently formulated will still allow Iran to be a formidable nuclear power. 
  • John BoehnerThe Speaker of the House was the person who invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress in the first place. 
  • President Obama asked Congress to put off these plans during his 2015 State of the Union, to ensure that Iran's interest in the negotiations does not evaporate. 
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The Obama administration, besides being miffed that Republican lawmakers invited a foreign leader without asking permission, is also trying to refute the arguments Netanyahu has been making against the nuclear negotiations.
  • Representative Steve Cohen told the New York Times, “I stand with Israel, always have stood with Israel, and always will, but this speech is not about Israel. Netanyahu is not Israel just like George W. Bush wasn’t America.”
  • Kerry really wants these talks to work out, especially since his diplomatic forays in Israel and Syria have not worked as well. 
  • Kerry also made an effort to show he was very much aware of what Obama administration opponents were saying about his schedule during a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday, According to the Associated Press, Kerry urged the organization "to end what the United States says is its unfair and biased focus on the Jewish State."
  • bennordpaskin on 03 Mar 15
     
    A news article that gives a description of the current situation in Washington with visiting Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The article briefly outlines the state of the pending negotiations with Iran concerning the nuclear weapons that Iran is possibly in possession of.
  • campbellcondon on 03 Mar 15
     
    Benjamin Netanyahu, who was originally a supporter of Mitt Romney, visits congress in attempt to cut down the sanctions in Iran for the country's agreement to not make nuclear weapons. Throughout his visit, Netanyahu tried to play down the dramatism of the situation.
jennacrosby

Announcing the Surrender of Japan (September 1, 1945)-Miller Center - 0 views

millercenter.org/...speech-3341

shared by jennacrosby on 30 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • jennacrosby on 30 Oct 15
     
    I could not find a video. This is a Transcript of President Harry S. Truman's opening speech before a conference in San Francisco announcing the surrender of japan, and focusing on Truman's acceptance of a peace treaty that officially ended America's Occupation in Japan after WWII. It was a pivotal moment in American Broadcasting . It was the first transcontinental television broadcast. Meaning it was the first time a television program was broadcast from coast to coast.
paigedeleeuw

U.S. Should Arm Ukraine to Help Check Russian Aggression - US News - 0 views

www.usnews.com/...-help-check-russian-aggression

shared by paigedeleeuw on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated assurances that Russia faces political isolation and an “economy in tatters,” Russia is still a very real threat to Ukraine – and potentially to other former Soviet satellites as well.
  • More than 5,400 people have been killed in the Ukraine conflict since Russian-backed rebels seized parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions last April.
  • Western pressure has not been able to successfully end the conflict.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • Russia’s military budget has still increased this year by 33 percent to 3.3 trillion rubles or more than $50 billion.
  • Moreover, some European politicians appear to be having second thoughts about maintaining sanctions against Russia.
  • current diplomacy is clearly failing.
  • On Feb. 12, Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko announced a peace deal after 17 hours of talks, yet these negotiations have not done much to end the conflict.
  • Russia has flouted the so-called Minsk II ceasefire, and Russian weaponry and soldiers continue to flow into Ukraine, with serious detrimental effects.
  • the need for the U.S. and its diplomatic partners to come up with a concerted strategy to push back against Russian imperialism. Increasing Ukraine’s military capabilities is a step in this direction.
  • Providing Ukraine with the weapons and training it needs in order to defend itself as part of a coordinated strategy to strengthen the Ukrainian state can contribute to stability by increasing the potential costs to Russia for its aggression.
  • supporting Ukraine will also ensure that Russia does not use its gains there as a precedent for invading other former-Soviet countries and re-establishing control.
  • Congress passed new legislation authorizing the provision of arms to the Ukrainian military.
  • Pentagon officials have confirmed that U.S. troops will deploy to Ukraine this spring to train four companies of the Ukrainian National Guard.
  • military aid to Ukraine will escalate tensions between the U.S. and Russia and prompt retaliation from Moscow.
  • the provision of weapons and training to Ukraine’s troops may strengthen Putin’s cry for a united nationalistic front against the West.
  • But Russia’s government, and its proxies in eastern Ukraine, has demonstrated that it will not be easily satisfied.
  • If it is not stopped there, it is liable to set its sights on still more territory that it hopes to acquire.
  • For Moscow, Ukraine represents the first step in a larger imperial project.
  • The U.S. should follow through with Congress’ determination to arm Ukraine and thereby help Kiev to secure its borders – and its sovereignty.
danielajallath

"Narrowcasting" - Obama and Islam, right wing Fox News directed... - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

ap government obama islam isis right wing muslim narrowcasting

shared by danielajallath on 03 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • danielajallath on 03 Nov 16
     
    This video is a good example of right wing narrowcasting. It is obvious that this is directed to Fox News viewers. Not all Fox News viewer would agree with the statements made on this video. This is more focused to anti-Islam and anti-Obama supporters. The language used by the newscaster is very specific and persuasive. It is generalizing and directly connecting Islam with terrorism. Here is an example: "Islamic killers are the central problem on this planet." In my opinion these are radical ideas themselves. It shows some evidence and pictures relating Obama with Islam. These are there to tie Obama to the negativeness that the newscaster has already said about Islam. We can see that this is an example of narrowcasting because this will not appeal to most people. It will most likely appeal to a certain group of people which this video was made for.
  • danielajallath on 03 Nov 16
     
    As we know, freedom of speech is an example of a Civil Right. Many countries do not allow bias media to be published, or if they do allow it, it is usually for their own benefit. This video and some ideas expressed could be offensive to some people and many would not like it (me.) But this is one of the beauties of this country. I could respond to this video with something bias on my side without a consequence from the other party that will endanger my security. Sometimes the picture could get dirty or might not be pretty, but at the end of the day it is something we should be grateful for, civil rights.
featherp

Susan Rice: Netanyahu visit 'destructive' - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by featherp on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • featherp on 03 Mar 15
     
    As Netanyahu is prepared to tear down the White House's efforts in negotiating Iraqs nuclear program, some democrats decided it wasn't worth attending while eight senators thought the same thing.
  • kyrranielson on 03 Mar 15
     
    This just proves that the disaster with this whole agreement will be huge. Iran's government obviously doesn't like us, and the Senate's participation in listening to the speech upset Netanyahu. And he argued that the deal currently in the works to prevent the nation from gaining nuclear weapons would in fact "guarantee" that it secures them - "lots of them." This scares me personally because the relationship between the U.S. and Iran doesn't look promising right now.
Joanne Kim

Secretary of State John Kerry working on Iran nuke deal not likely to please Israel's N... - 2 views

www.pennlive.com/...etary_of_state_john_kerry.html

shared by Joanne Kim on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
sebasgm liked it
  • Senior U.S. and Iranian officials kicked off the second day of the latest round of nuclear negotiations here on Tuesday as Israel's leader prepared to deliver a speech to Congress denouncing a potential deal as dangerous to the Jewish state and the world.
  • Iran would have to suspend its nuclear activities for at least a decade as part of any final agreement.
  • It is clear that Obama's stance is aimed at confronting propaganda by Zionist regime's prime minister and other extremist opponents of the negotiations,"
  • Joanne Kim on 03 Mar 15
     
    This article shows how the secretary of state is working with Israel and discussing how to deal with Iran and its nuclear activities.
  • sebasgm on 03 Mar 15
     
    It makes sense that Israel is not pleased with the US trying to Negotiate with Iran, without completely removing their nuclear advancement, but instead only delaying it in return for the removal of the US sanctions. Not only does that make Israel Iran's major target, but it also allows for Iran to become more wealthy during that delay period, which makes them an even larger threat to Israel.
  • kyrranielson on 03 Mar 15
     
    It's very interesting that the Iranian leader is offended by the president's actions and how that might take accord in the rest of the agreements.
paigedeleeuw

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting | Benton Foundation - 2 views

benton.org/...sec2

shared by paigedeleeuw on 29 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Federal oversight of all broadcasting has had two general goals: to foster the commercial development of the industry and to ensure that broadcasting serves the educational and informational needs of the American people.
  • Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sometimes concluded that the broadcast marketplace by itself is not adequately serving public needs. Accordingly, numerous efforts have been undertaken over the past 70 years to encourage or require programming or airtime to enhance the electoral process, governance, political discourse, local community affairs, and education. Some initiatives have sought to help underserved audience-constituencies such as children, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
  • As competition in the telecommunications marketplace becomes more acute and as the competitive dynamics of TV broadcasting change, the capacities of the free marketplace to serve public ends are being tested as never before.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • A recurring challenge for Congress and the FCC has been how to reconcile the competitive commercial pressures of broadcasting with the needs of a democracy when the two seem to be in conflict. This struggle was at the heart of the controversy that led to enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.(1)
  • Under the antiquated Radio Act of 1912, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was authorized to issue radio licenses to citizens on request.(2) Because broadcast spectrum was so plentiful relative to demand, it was not considered necessary to empower the Secretary to deny radio licenses.
  • ongress expanded the deregulatory approach of the 1980s with its enactment of the Telecommunications Act.(38) Among other things, the Act extended the length of television broadcast licenses from 5 years to 8 years(39) and instituted new license renewal procedures that made it more difficult for competitors to compete for an existing broadcast license.(40) The Telecommunications Act also lifted limits on the number of stations that a single company could own, a rule that historically was intended to promote greater diversity in programming.(41)
  • From the beginning, broadcast regulation in the public interest has sought to meet certain basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not provide. It has sought to cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive communities.
  • why public interest obligations have been seen as vital to broadcast television—and why a marketplace conception of free speech may meet many, but not all, needs of American democracy.
  • Opportunity for local self-expression. The development and use of local talent. Programs for children. Religious programs. Educational programs. Public affairs programs. Editorialization by licensees. Political broadcasts. Agricultural programs. News programs. Weather and market services. Sports programs. Service to minority groups. Entertainment programming.
  • The 1934 Act, which continues to be the charter for broadcast television, ratified a fundamental compromise by adopting two related provisions: a ban on "common carrier" regulation (sought by broadcasters) and a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" (supported by Congress and various civic, educational, and religious groups).(3) The phrase was given no particular definition; some considered it necessary for the Federal Government's licensing powers to be considered constitutional.(4)
  • If a broadcast licensee airs an editorial that either endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate, the licensee must notify all other candidates for that particular office within 24 hours, provide them with a script or tape, and offer them a "reasonable opportunity to respond through the use of the licensee's broadcast facilities.
  • the chief legal vehicle for citizens to gain direct access to the airwaves -- or hear diverse viewpoints on controversial public issues -- was the Fairness Doctrine. The principles behind the Fairness Doctrine were first expressed in 1929 in guidelines issued by the FRC, with regard to Great Lakes Broadcasting Co.(50) That Commission statement affirmed the need for broadcasters to serve a diverse public with well- rounded programming.
  • the FCC held in the Mayflower ruling in 1941 that a broadcast station could never editorialize because it would flout the public interest mandate that all sides of a controversial issue be fairly presented. Licensees, the FCC said, must present "all sides of important public questions fairly, objectively and without bias."(51)
  • For decades, the Fairness Doctrine was seen as a primary feature of the public interest standard.
  • In 1963, the FCC formally articulated the principle that the presentation of only one side of an issue during a sponsored program (such as an attack on the proposed Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) required free airtime for opposing views -- a rule known as the Cullman Doctrine.(59) Cigarette advertising, and later, controversial advertising in general, also became subject to the Fairness Doctrine.(60) In 1967 the Commission formalized its "personal attack rule" and political editorial policies in specific and specialized rules.(61)
  • Localism was one reason why Congress enacted the 1962 "all-channel" law -- a law that required that all television receivers be capable of receiving both VHF and UHF signals. The idea, according to a House committee report, was to "permit all communities of appreciable size to have at least one television station as an outlet for local self-expression."(77) With varying degrees of success, the FCC has also sought to promote locally originated programming through the Prime Time Access Rule (a rule that once limited networks to 3 hours of programming during primetime, but has since been repealed) and through policy statements that mention local news and public affairs programming as inherent to the public interest stan- dard.(78)
  • The bond between broadcasters and their local communities was given a new and stronger dimension in the 1960s as a result of United Church of Christ v. FCC.(79) In 1964, after the station owner of WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi, aired a program urging racial segregation but refused to air the views of civil rights activists or even to meet with them, the United Church of Christ and others petitioned for legal standing to challenge the renewal of WLBT's broadcast license. A Circuit Court ruling in 1966 held that citizens have the right to participate in the FCC license renewal process.
  • A primary objective and benefit of our Nation's system of regulation of television broadcasting is the local origination of programming. There is a substantial governmental interest in ensuring its continuation.
  • the Supreme Court in Turner Broadcasting v. FCC recognized Congress's rationale and upheld the must-carry rules as consistent with the First Amendment
  • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 encouraged the television industry to develop a voluntary ratings system that allows parents to assess the suitability of programming for their children.
  • Congress has recognized the public interest in expanding captioning access through two key legislative acts. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act (TDCA), passed in 1990, requires all television sets with screens 13 inches or larger manufactured or imported into the United States after July 1, 1993, to display closed captions through a "decoder chip" built into the sets.
  • kyrranielson on 29 Oct 14
     
    I think that if "broadcasters are meant to act as trustees for the public interest, then a corollary is that they must affirmatively present a wide diversity of perspectives." In my opinion, this is fantastic for all other means than politics. I think that both sides of an arguement should be presented publicly. I don't think that a Republican should just watch what the republican candidates are discussing but also look at the side of the Democrat to have a well-rounded political knowledge.
campbellcondon

Scott Walker (Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall Vote) - 2 views

topics.nytimes.com/...index.html

ap government gubernational scott walker

shared by campbellcondon on 25 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • campbellcondon on 25 Mar 15
     
    Morry Gash/Associated Press News about Scott Walker (Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall Vote), including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times. Show More There are no additional abstracts to display. The governor of Wisconsin has filtered out his regional accent, cut down rambling in speeches and started dressing to please on visits to states like New Hampshire.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Joanne Kim on 25 Mar 15
     
    This time line shows in detail about the events from the beginning to the end. One thing I noticed is about the after effect since unions tried to get rid of Walker and had to use a lot of time and money on it and didn't even succeed.
  • kyrranielson on 25 Mar 15
     
    I like the timeline, it shows how much effort was put in on both sides of the election. It is very unfortunate that the money spent in favor of Barrett was wasted as well as the time but it for the recall. Obviously it was a good decision by Wisconsin voters to not recall Walker because he ended up being very great governor to boost the economy.
  • natedurrett on 27 Mar 15
     
    I agree with kyrranielson on the topic of the money being spent for naught, but Although Walker is doing well, there is the off chance Barrett would have been better
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20▼ items per page