III. The role of the media and public opinion as sources of opposing to the
Political power in the case of NAE and NEH.
This chapter describes the influence of the media power and public opinion to protect NAE and NEH from the budget cut under the policy decision of the new administration of the President of the U.S. D. Trump.
In fact, recent years there are have been seen a lot of evidence when outcomes of the political process, elections and other decision-making process have dramatically changed because of media`s influence. For instance, the last Presidential election in the U.S. is one of the evidence of the media power`s impact, when many supporters of the candidate H. Clinton voted for the current President after revealing about using a private server for her work email account (Williams,2017).
Furthermore, Hargrove and Glidewell (1990) classified public agencies that have a heavy emphasis on public opinion (as cited in Rainey, 2014, p. 116). Their classification is based on the level of respect of the public, the general level of support for the mission and purpose of the agency. In this paper, NAE and NEH are illustrated as an example of the high level of the respect and support of the public and media. As previously informed, after announcing new budget proposals, NAE and NEH were under a drastic budget cut plan. …show more content…
Consequently, as a reaction to the news, there was decided to launch an official petition at WhiteHouse.gov in order to protect the institutions from cutbacks. The petition reads: “The Arts and Humanities are a vital part of our cultural identity and enhance the quality of our lives. They connect us to the past, they speak to us in the present, and they are our legacy, our gift to the future. Investing in them is never a waste, and I strongly urge that both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities continue to receive federal funding” (Hetrick, 2017). This petition has reached 223,745 signatures; it is twice more than the goal of 100,000 (U.S. Senate, 2017). To sum up, it clearly shows high level of support and respect of public for these agencies activities and purposes. Another strong support for NEA and NEH from media is provided by the various sources such as Washington Post, The New York Times, Playbill as well as National Review and others. Generally speaking, their attitudes toward new administration budget proposals are negative. For instance, articles such as “Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending” (Bump, 2017), “NEA and NEH endangered again” (Conway, 2017), statements “…there is nothing wrong with spending money on cultural programs…” (Williamson, 2017) clearly illustrate that these media sources by publishing supporters’ opinion about budget cut proposals for NEA and NEH pay more attention to this situation and worry about their further existence. In the result, The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee released a 2018 spending bill Monday that would keep the organizations at their 2017 funding levels, in contrast with the Trump administration's recommendations (U.S. Senate, 2017). To conclude all, in this chapter there are clear evidence that media power and public opinion made the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee review budget plans for the next year in order to keep NEA and NEH. IV. Organizations reaction towards budget cut proposals. Generally speaking, any news about decreasing finance or stopping financial support, at least, prompts sadness or desolation. In the case of NEA and NEH the outcomes of the budget cut might dramatically influence the society by following reasons: firstly, elimination of those organization entirely; secondly, reduction in employment, and finally, more importantly, cancelling supportive programs which are oriented on rural areas, low-income areas, schoolchildren, seniors and veterans. There are no doubts that the reaction of those organization was accompanied by critical statements, in some cases, emotional curses, and sometimes with strong aggression. For instance, the following examples from different sources show that how staff members of the organizations react to proposal cutbacks. William D. Adams, chairman of the humanities endowment said: “We are greatly saddened to learn of this proposal for elimination, as NEH has made significant contributions to the public good” (Deb, 2017). "As far as I'm concerned, I would say this
Political power in the case of NAE and NEH.
This chapter describes the influence of the media power and public opinion to protect NAE and NEH from the budget cut under the policy decision of the new administration of the President of the U.S. D. Trump.
In fact, recent years there are have been seen a lot of evidence when outcomes of the political process, elections and other decision-making process have dramatically changed because of media`s influence. For instance, the last Presidential election in the U.S. is one of the evidence of the media power`s impact, when many supporters of the candidate H. Clinton voted for the current President after revealing about using a private server for her work email account (Williams,2017).
Furthermore, Hargrove and Glidewell (1990) classified public agencies that have a heavy emphasis on public opinion (as cited in Rainey, 2014, p. 116). Their classification is based on the level of respect of the public, the general level of support for the mission and purpose of the agency. In this paper, NAE and NEH are illustrated as an example of the high level of the respect and support of the public and media. As previously informed, after announcing new budget proposals, NAE and NEH were under a drastic budget cut plan. …show more content…
Consequently, as a reaction to the news, there was decided to launch an official petition at WhiteHouse.gov in order to protect the institutions from cutbacks. The petition reads: “The Arts and Humanities are a vital part of our cultural identity and enhance the quality of our lives. They connect us to the past, they speak to us in the present, and they are our legacy, our gift to the future. Investing in them is never a waste, and I strongly urge that both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities continue to receive federal funding” (Hetrick, 2017). This petition has reached 223,745 signatures; it is twice more than the goal of 100,000 (U.S. Senate, 2017). To sum up, it clearly shows high level of support and respect of public for these agencies activities and purposes. Another strong support for NEA and NEH from media is provided by the various sources such as Washington Post, The New York Times, Playbill as well as National Review and others. Generally speaking, their attitudes toward new administration budget proposals are negative. For instance, articles such as “Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending” (Bump, 2017), “NEA and NEH endangered again” (Conway, 2017), statements “…there is nothing wrong with spending money on cultural programs…” (Williamson, 2017) clearly illustrate that these media sources by publishing supporters’ opinion about budget cut proposals for NEA and NEH pay more attention to this situation and worry about their further existence. In the result, The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee released a 2018 spending bill Monday that would keep the organizations at their 2017 funding levels, in contrast with the Trump administration's recommendations (U.S. Senate, 2017). To conclude all, in this chapter there are clear evidence that media power and public opinion made the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee review budget plans for the next year in order to keep NEA and NEH. IV. Organizations reaction towards budget cut proposals. Generally speaking, any news about decreasing finance or stopping financial support, at least, prompts sadness or desolation. In the case of NEA and NEH the outcomes of the budget cut might dramatically influence the society by following reasons: firstly, elimination of those organization entirely; secondly, reduction in employment, and finally, more importantly, cancelling supportive programs which are oriented on rural areas, low-income areas, schoolchildren, seniors and veterans. There are no doubts that the reaction of those organization was accompanied by critical statements, in some cases, emotional curses, and sometimes with strong aggression. For instance, the following examples from different sources show that how staff members of the organizations react to proposal cutbacks. William D. Adams, chairman of the humanities endowment said: “We are greatly saddened to learn of this proposal for elimination, as NEH has made significant contributions to the public good” (Deb, 2017). "As far as I'm concerned, I would say this