Now, it was a 12-hour drive to Canada the Romneys embarked upon. But it was a long time ago.
The story has seen new life in the wake of the news that Barack Obama ate dog meat as a child growing up in Indonesia. He did that a few times ... in, like, 1970.
Are either of these stories relevant today, in 2012? Are they newsworthy?
(Photo by the White House, via the Washington Post)
11 comments:
To put it simply, times have changed. These stories are not relevant or newsworthy in my opinion. The only reason they are talked about is because they are notable personalities.
Kevaun Green, sup Chase,
You know we usually agree, but I think it is newsworthy, it definitely provides unusual, prominent and relevant information about people audiences want to know about. Politicians personalities influence the way they execute their job duties.
I agree with Kevaun on this particular topic. I think that it does provide relevant, prominent, and unusual news in both of the stories. When it comes to news I think that any prominent figure's doings in life whether it was yesterday or 50 years ago, will be considered newsworthy and a story for the media to report on.
The stories are certainly not timely, and the only relevance they have is the fact that they involve President Obama and Mitt Romney. The stories themselves are outdated and completely irrelevant to our country, but because of their celebrity status, people are trying to make them relevant. Because of the election year, people have begun digging up irrelevant stories from the past that should have no place in the media. Instead, we should be focusing on their campaigns and political agendas.
These stories are only relevant because they involved President Obama and Mitt Romney. These people are trying to make a situation that happened years ago turn into a scandal that could be held against the individual now. Of course there will be those who are outraged by what happened, but they must consider that this happened quite a long time ago.
I found both stories not newsworthy at all. Mitt Romney should have taken another approach when taking a family vacation and putting the dog on the roof top in my belief. I would most certainly not put my dog on the roof top no matter what circumstances. The Barack Obama story is still not newsworthiness either but to analyze this situation One he was around nine years old in the 1970. Was that the only thing to survive from at the time? Did he actually have a choice of what he had to eat at a young age? What is the different from eating a chicken to eating a dog?
Rahmeek Jones
I'm a big advocate for animal respect, but what someone has done in the past of such insignificant matter doesn't really make this newsworthy. Sure, the people are relevant and the stories unusual, but the stories themselves are irrelevant to what's going on currently.
The stories about MItt Romney strapping his dog to the roof of his car, and the story about President Barack Obama eating dog meat as a child, are irrelevant to the news of 2012. The only reason why these stories are in the media is because of the presidential election coming up. Journalists are looking for any way to put these two candidates names into the news.
I do not think that these stories about Mitt Romney strapping his dog to the roof of his car and President Obama eating dogmeat are newsworthy. This is 2012 and these stories took place a long time ago. This does deceive the reader or are like advertisements between segments of a newscast in a way, because the presedential elections are coming up soon and so these stories are put in the news and also because these stories are about famous figures.
As a dog-lover, I find it extremely odd that at age 40 Mitt Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car. I do not think that it is relevant for today's news however. As for Obama, I think it is just a sign that he is cultured, eating dog meat isn't as unusual in Indonesia as it is in America. I don't think these stories should have any effect on the presidential election.
I feel like they're not newsworthy because news is supposed to be relevant. Plus,how do they're dog stories relate to real politics anyway? I feel like this is a form of "fake" politics that the media is using to portray the presidential candidates in certain ways. The media does this in order to get a reaction from the audience, and although the fact that these things took place years ago, they are still unusual. In addition, since so many Americans have dogs these days,it is likely that the media highlighted these dog stories in order to connect with the audience personally. Furthermore, it is all about the audience.
Post a Comment