I think that Robinson discusses an interesting topic in his article about the role of the media in determining policy initiatives, he writes about some policies being seen as "undoable" while others are "media friendly" preferred polices. My job working in a Public Affairs Bureau puts me front in center of understanding how the CNN effect occurs in terms of the policy responses to domestic issues, such as the recent protests against Transcanada Keystone XL Pipeline. Foreign policy issues, however, where Americans plead for the U.S. to intervene to humanitarian crises vary in severity and cause, from the November 2, 2011 Freedom Flotilla 2 Stay Human, to the last summer's cruel drought bringing famine to the Horn of Africa. Between the role of technologies and quick access to information, we are the media contributors that are changing the dynamic of global governance. Or do we just think that we are? Are the actions that we strike up in protest that gain media attention really taken into account in Congress? First of all it all has to do with the numbers, the more we contribute the more we will be heard. In that sense, I like to believe that garnering enough attention can help humanitarian efforts make policies seem “doable” and bring enough support to where it is really needed. This happened with the famine in the Horn of Africa and hopefully will continue where humans basic human rights are infringed, we’re America after all, so its our job, right?
What a fascinating job to have! I have often been in awe of the American public's ability to point their finger and say 'we want this situation to get better' and boom, there it is, Americans have mobilized to improve the situation a group of people half way across the world. It is truly a humbling site to see churches, schools, community organizations pulling together to contribute in humanitarian efforts in their own small way to the US government's commitment to ending the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Though, sometimes I wonder if this ability to turn the lens and zoom in on one event, epidemic or location can skew our own view and cause more harm than good. I feel Americans sometimes feel that its just a matter of providing food, clothes and money to a problem for a few months and then it is all better, when, in fact, the truth is much more complex.
And when the US does decide to turn its attention to one area, it does so at the expense of everything else that is happening in the world. Budgets for old humanitarian interests are cut to feed the new humanitarian need, treating something very serious and complex as a fad. In class we discussed how an event is publicized will have a huge effect on how the public will respond to an event. As the media caught up with the public? Are governments now able to use media to assist in controlling what they want us to respond to and what they don't?