I do not watch broadcast news, or read print media. I don’t because it’s doesn’t or never has interested me. I mean I like to hear about stories and things that are happening around, but I usually don’t take my time away to watch the news or read the newspaper. I usually just hear it from people and then ask questions if I’m interested. Lack of engagement in news and media coverage from Americans can negatively impact American society, culture, and political decision. I support this because I am an example; I barely know anything about politics, news and what’s going on around me. I usually just go off of what people say and what they think, which is bad because that person could be standing for something wrong or not needed. I wouldn’t know this and would probably have voted for whoever my friends are voting for and if lots of people would do this then I believe it’s a negative impact on American society. The bias ones would be the articles that are sort of attacking one subject or bring the people to believing them or to influence them into that idea. As to the other site the articles are blunter, they really don’t stand for one side they just tell you about the subject or topic. The articles that are bias are the ones that label or state that we feel so and so doesn’t have the power to do this or that. As to where the other article are saying to read the charts and not the articles, so that the public can see for themselves and come to their own conclusion. I feel it’s more conservative because the political attitude advocates institutions and traditional practices

how to be elected

It takes a lot to get elected now a day since more and more people around us are starting to become more and more aware of politics, but yet people still don’t vote. It’s also all about campaigning and getting your name out into the public, but doing all of these costs tons of money. A way to bring up this money is through fund-raising, which is where the terms hard money and soft money come into play. Hard money is the cash that is raised under the guidelines set out by the Federal Elections Commission. This money comes from individuals or political action committees and an example of this would be an ongoing government daycare subsidies or firms that pay annual scholarships to post-secondary students. Soft money refers to cash that political parties can raise in unlimited amounts from individuals or corporations. Now even if you had a lot or enough money to campaign, you still have to deal with Media Bias. Media bias is when the media tells a story with a slant or with the intention to get you to stand for what they have said. I feel this totally goes against the method of being truly democratic because it brings the public to believe more in one candidate than the other if they know nothing about them in the first place. Political Action Committees is the name commonly given to a private group, who wants to contribute to federal candidates. They are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to candidate, but yet it’s better than nothing and it’s a must. Voter Turnout is the percentage of people who casted a ballot in an elections, which is still low in America. Political Parties all seek to obtain some kind of political power. They all compete with each other and it’s a democratic way, but it starts to become unfair when the media starts becoming bias towards current candidates

Civil Liberties Test

In the case Feiner v. New York, Feiner claimed that his conviction violated his right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Court found that Feiner's First Amendments rights were not violated, because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur. The Court found that the police did not attempt to suppress Feiner's message based on its content, but rather on the reaction of the crowd. This case is an example of when freedoms and protections collide. Everyone does have the right to say whatever they want, as long as it's not libel, slander, or could cause clear and present danger, which all these have to do the protections. The first amendment allows you to say whatever you want, which is a freedom, but if what you’re saying can cause and uprising of problems and conflicts that can endanger the people around you then you could be arrested for disturbing the peace, just has in Feiner’s case. The 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans with "Life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In the Case Goss v. Lopez two students were suspended without some sort of hearing or conference. This violated the 14th Amendment, for they should have been giving a hearing, in which not doing so, they were treated unequally and it caused their good name to be at stack. As for in the case New Jersey v. T.L.O a student was accused of smoking in the bathroom, which lead to the searching of her purse. Now does this violate the 14th Amendment? No, because they had “probable cause” and the concern for safety overrides the intrusting of privacy. In the Case Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda was arrested and interrogated, without the warning of his rights that were protected under the 5th amendment. In though the court was trying to protect the people by putting away the “bad guys”, they still violated the 5th amendment and his rights to remain silence.
Willie Gray

"test test post"