The Chinese government, who normally has rigid political censorship for their local press and Chinese websites, freely allowed reporters to lash out in sharp critique of foreign press and the bias that is shown for Tibetans. Violent images of riots and looting allegedly incited by Tibetans against Han Chinese in Tibets capital, Lhasa, have also been encouraged and posted by Chinese bloggers.

Meanwhile, China has cut off any access to information from foreign press and networks who mention any of the riots in Tibet or the Dalai Lama; these include CNN, BBC, YouTube, and just recently added to the list is the New Yord Times.

The Chinese government has barred any foreign press to go to Tibet or any surrounding provinces. Reporters that did manage to get in were quickly kicked out. All of this was done AFTER their government pledged that foreign press would be given greater access and press freedoms in the country during the months leading up to the Olympics.

This effort, on behalf of the Chinese government, is the clearest sign yet that it's concerned the Tibet unrest and antigovernment protests of Darfur could disrupt this year's summer Olympics that will be held in Beijing, China.

China continues to condradict itself. Their government is blocking foreign media for fear of biased reporting, yet has no problems with allowing their people to create biased blogs and journalism. Extremely hypocritical if you ask me.

There is greatness in growing up in a democratic society. Freedom of speech and thought are values journalist adhere to (here in the U.S.) in order not to be biased. This creed of honest and fair reporting helps the public to see both sides with a more clearly stated purpose. It breaks situations down for people into digestible pieces, helping them to make more informed decisions (even in opinion.)

If the Chinese don't get their act together, I believe that their decision will indeed have an effect on the atmosphere of the Olympic Games. Foreign journalist like freedom of press and the Chinese government begrudging this and aborting their pledge will not fair their image well.

Besides, aren't the Olympics a symbol of peace between nations? Don't nations bid for this years in advance? I would think, even if just as a ruse, the government might have tried to temporarily stifle and appease until after the Games were over.

That's what a great nation like the United States would probably do. Goodness, but I do love this country.

Derrick Ashong, 32, was just supposed to drop his friend off at the primary Democratic debate at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood on January 31; his serendipitous last minute decision to stay and rally for Obama proved to be one that many will not soon forget.

While rallying for his favorite candidate, Ashong was being pummelled by an unrelenting reporter asking for the reasoning in which he was supporting Obama. The reporter was caught off guard when Ashong actually had some intelligent and legitimate reasons to back up his decision.

Not looking like the typical political junky, Ashong is an entrepreneurial band member, actor, public speaker and hopeful business tycoon looking to put together a media business called Take Back the Mic, which is an effort to use niche marketing to bring music and other media to a global market.

Coincidentally, this impromptu interview (which initially gained him six minutes of television fame that is currently thriving on YouTube, along with an additional five minutes of encore time that was requested from his viewers who now total over 1 million) demonstrated the exact power of viral marketing that he hopes to use for his company and band.

A lot of political analysts think that Obama's image that is perceived by younger generations of voters is much like Ashong's...very hip, trendy and rock-and-roll. Having someone like Ashong certainly helps to reach out to and marry the two worlds of politics and pop culture.

I think it is wonderful so many different types of people that represent our blended culture know what is going on and have a fantastic opinion based on facts, not just emotion. I feel it is working to involve youth in one of the most incredible (and undoubtedly historical) times in US politics.

I remember when MTV was getting onto the young ones through means of commercials, imploring them to vote. Now, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person of legal age who can't wait to vote. It makes me feel a little more secure in knowing that more people are taking a vested interest in our country's future.

The media's love affair surrounding the contention of this year's presidential candidates is growing cold. The attention that was once lavished upon all of the country's potential leaders has waned considerably since fall of last year.

In lieu of election coverage, some of the major television networks like NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX opted to stay with their regularly scheduled programs or substituted the spot with can-miss shows.

A former president of NBC News, Lawrence K. Grossman, is of the opinion that "Networks have pretty much left the field."

So when CBS yearns to get a presidential debate with Katie Couric in the mix, does it make sense that they would run a reality t.v. show, a re-run of NCIS, and a show that very few people have heard of? This would have been a very good opportunity for the network to let Couric earn her $15 million-a-year by covering a live running coverage of the political showdowns between Obama and Clinton.

Of course, when ABC actually covered 3 hours of Super Tuesday during the primetime slot, they "got clobbered" because of it. Some people attribute this to the up-to-date information that is so easily accessable through other mediums.

There are so many other cable stations that have the ability to specialize in these events without a decrease in ratings, such as MSNBC, CNN and FOX news channels. It makes the demand of coverage from the original political heavy-hitters (ABC,NBC and CBS) virtually obselete.

I think that a great majority of Americans are probably rejoicing (whether silently or jubilantly) that alternate stations have started to take over these political sagas. Personally, by the time November rolls around, I am very tired of hearing the squabbles between candidates. It gets to be overwhelming. Sometimes, I just want to hear the local news and nothing else.

Besides, right now I am a little jaded by the fact that my vote in the Florida Primary didn't count. Why am I paying attention to what they have to say now? I was diligent in following the platforms early on, making certain to base my vote (again, the one that didn't count) on studied information, to no avail.
.
Like I said, I am a little jaded. I do understand the importance of educating yourself and knowing what a candidate stands for. I do listen and learn, but it is nice to know that I can always turn to a news station on cable that is likely to have running coverage. I think that it helps maintain a bit of sanity to all the couch potatoes who are a-political. (Bless them)

Much to the chagrin of the well-seasoned SNL writer, James Downey, America pays heed to his satiric comedy he churns out as a political barometer for those who are not prone to be politically savy.

Downey has been responsible for creating alot of the idiosyncrasies we have well come to know. He is credited with defining the candidates before they define themselves. His send-up of the 2000 debate between Al Gore and Bush is best known for the coining of the Bushian malapropism "stategery" (which many people give Bush himself credit for.)

Downey, apparently, is at it again; this time with a nod from Hillary Rodham Clinton. In one of the recent SNL skits, Clinton and Obama were being pitted against each other in a debate. As Clinton was being attacked by all those surrounding her, Obama was asked if he was comfortable or needed another pillow.

Clinton jumped at the opportunity to use this as a way to say, "See, even SNL thinks it isn't a fair playing ground." Even though Downey does agree with that fact, he didn't mean the skit as an endorsement for the Clinton campaign.

He writes comedy that makes fun of the hottest political topics. Some things make people laugh because they are funny. With other things, Downey says, the effect is: "Hey that's right. That makes sense."

Downey does not now, nor ever has, set out to make his skits influence political views and opinions of the public. Sometimes he might articulate ideas that are vaguely out there that have not yet been stated in a comedy form.

Whether Downey wants to admit it, a great majority of America is influenced by what they see on television. Comedy or not, it holds something of value to individuals who might be riding the fence (in a political sense.) Points are made about character and policies, even if these things aren't in the best of light.

For those couch potatoes who don't want to research the platforms of candidates, shows like SNL give them a vague enough idea (or so they think) of what they think the candidates stand for. It's kind of like a T.V. version of "Politics for Dummies."