Obama's Army

A recent article in the LA Times is tackling the question many Obama supporters and volunteers are asking "what now?" As a recent addition to their email list and member of MyOB.com, I know that there is still communication via email but some are saying it is not enough.

"I don't think e-mails or YouTube videos from the president-elect are going to be enough," Figueroa said. "These people want to continue to be a part of whatever agenda comes out of the White House, and they want to be active participants in this government that they feel they have ownership of."

In talking about ways to take advantage of the grass-roots base, one of the big questions is whether it should be directly associated or under the Democrats or if it shouldn't be about party, as Obama himself often said. I am encouraged that their are plans to keep the network alive and thriving throughout the upcoming administration. In keeping people involved in the governing process rather than just the election process, I think we will be better off as a country as people start to feel a sense of civic responsibility that has been absent.

One thing I think is particularly relevant for us is just how much politicians can do now without the media. With the internet, they no longer need the media the mediate discussion between the two. In these instances the media is simply the reporter and commentator, rather than a facilitator.

Thank You Julia

I thought Julia's idea that Jindal make engagements to speak at college graduations could have huge potential for helping us reach our objectives. We have already seen that he is an articulate and engaging speaker and I think this would be the perfect forum for him to showcase this to young voters. It creates a personal connection with people, allowing the candidate to become a part of their momentus occasion. Things like this also have the potential for generating positive new coverage at the local level. TV stations will cover the event taking place in their area which is more likely to grab people's attention. Social networking sites could also play a part in this event since they are so big on college campuses. Now, what schools should we aim to speak at?

jindal2012blog.com

I'm not directing you to a new blog I have created for our most recent assignment, this is a blog I came across on RightPundits.com. The blog appears to be relatively new, but it has begun to synthesize coverage of news stories and videos of Jindal. I know there are many other similiar sites out there, which I fully support. We certainly need to keep someone one these sites and encourage them to continue there efforts, but as strategists, I think we also need to put effort into showing an energized Repulican party. By restoring faith in the party first, we are bringing more attention to more than one potential candidate, helping to ensure Jindal doesn't peak too early. In the same regard, I think we need to keep a close eye on potential GOP members who could run against him for the nomination. This will help us to develop a long-term campaign strategy. Romney is certainly someone we will need to follow, and there are quite a few google hits for John Thune. These people will certainly influence are approach to Jindal's campaign.

Obama isn't the only one getting people involved in politics

The LA Times had an article about a wealthy VA businessman who has spent $1million on hotel accomadations for the upcoming inauguation. The package is "the JW Marriott's $1-million "build your own ball" offer, including 300 rooms, four suites, $200,000 worth of food and drink, and a primo site overlooking the parade route." The successful, black Virginian wanted to make a gesture that demonstrates what American values should be about, giving back and caring for a one another.

Earl Stafford, 60, the founder of a Centreville, Va., technology company who grew up as one of 12 children of a Baptist minister, said he would provide his guests lodging, food and special access, as well as beauticians, gowns and tuxedos, if necessary. Stafford has paid the $1 million, a spokesman said, and is prepared to spend an additional $600,000 for a breakfast, a luncheon and two balls at the hotel. Stafford said he hopes to recoup some of the $600,000 from sponsors yet to be recruited.
"We wanted to . . . bless those who otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity to be a part of the great celebration, the inauguration and the festivities," Stafford said in an interview Wednesday.

I think this is a great thing and in tough economic times, it gives me a sense of hope somehow. there are still people out there willing to make sacrafices to help others. Aside from just being a feel good story, I think this demonstrates how Obama's presidency is continuting to inspire people to be involved in our democracy.

my.bobbyjindal.com

In the world of facebook and myspace, Barack Obama created his own social networking site. On the homepage it is defined as an "online community with over a million members. Get access to the tools you need to effectively organize for Barack Obama and build this movement for change." On the right side of the page there is an area to click to donate to help victims of Southern California fires. A perfect opportunity to Jindal to ask for help for hurricane victims.

Once you sign up and become a member you can create a profile to tell other users about yourself and even manage a blog on the site. You join a network based on where you live and can find events in your area. There is also a log where you can keep track of your involvement.

The site isn't doing anything that's particularly new, but they are taking a bunch of different internet outlets and bringing them together in one place. You even have the option of connecting your facebook account with your MyBO account. It streamlines the online experience. If I had to guess, I would say that facebook probably served as a template for the site but it keeps everything you need to know about Obama and his campaign in one place.

Needless to say, Bobby Jindal will have his own as well, in some variation of this form.

What does Jindal have going for him?

As governor of LA, I think one of Jindal's strongest marketable assets at this point is hurricanes. We touched on this briefly in class but I think this could be something much bigger than an appearance at a Saints game (although that is certainly consistent with Joe and my philosophy). The appeal here can be done on a national basis. When Katrina hit, the whole country was somehow involved. Whether we knew someone in the area or contributed to the relief effort, we had a stake in the tragedy. Consequently the anger and resentment many people felt about how it was handled by the government can be a way for Jindal to distinguish himself from the same old politics (aka GW) and on a large scale, demonstrate what he is capable of. He has been applauded for the way he dealt with Gustav and he is still taking care of the after-effects of Katrina. Wouldn't you want someone in office who has already dealt with a national crisis, and succeeded?

More to come...

Looking Forward

I'm relieved that I am apparently gainfully employed for the next few years (hopefully at least 4). As a communication strategist for Bobby Jindal's upcoming presidential campaign, I'm going to start brainstorming a few ideas to make his run a success.

• First off, and perhaps most importantly, we need to figure out what his image or brand is going to be and stick with it. In deciding what his code will be, we can then dive into how best to market him. At this early point, my gut tells me he needs to be genuine and approachable. Come up with a related catch-phrase.
• We need to have more participation at a local level. Take better advantage of local Republicans? Ultimately, communities need to feel like they have something invested in and play a part in the campaign. We need to get voters to own it, rather than just observing it.
• Provide a medium for supporters to "report" on Jindal's campaign. Organization and control is very important here. Suggestions are welcome.
• Go after independents and undecideds. Research demographics. Target markets. Get them early.

Stalking the Consumer

Starting my search on the Knight site, I came across quite a few things that have a lot to say about our current discussion on the future of news. I apologize if this post gets a little messy with links. This blogger led me to several others who's general message was, follow your audience everywhere they go. NBC has begun placing video screens above gas pumps and reaching their audience while they are fueling up. Put your product somewhere where people are forced to notice you. This is coming following the placement of monitors in taxi cabs. People are in a small confined space and force them to pay attention, you are certainly likely to spark their interest.

Jeff Jarvis's blog essentially serves as a place to ponder and and predict the future of news. One thing he suggests in this post, echoes the idea of catering to your audience.

* The next generation of local (news) won’t be about news organizations but about their communities. News is just one of the community’s needs. It also needs elegant organization. News companies and networks can help provide that. The bigger goal is to provide platforms that enable communities to do what they want to do, share what they want to share, know what they need to know together. News will become a product of the community as much as it is a service to it.

Organizations need to appear that they have no selfish desires. Their work isn't about them (as we have discovered it often is) but about the people they serve. They need to adopt a how can I help you mentality.

That particular post has a lot more to say about what Jarvis expects news to become if you have some spare time.

2012

The conversation about the future of and future faces of the GOP is in full swing and one name has come to the forefront. Bobby Jindal has his own thoughts about what the Republican's must do in the coming years but that isn't why he is dominating coverage. As everyone talks about Jindal's possible run for president, some obvious parallels to Obama are being drawn (young, minority). I think the Republican party needs to take steps to control the narrative. Jindal has opportunities to prove himself as a leader in his current capacity and make a name for himself, rather than being talked about in comparison to the president elect. To pit him against a very popular political figure (we can't say President yet, that remains to be seen), is a risky maneuver. They need someone who can forge their own, fresh identity for the party. That being said, the Republicans need to take full advantage of the technology and tactics used by Obama's campaign. Elections are changing and it seems to be jump in or be left behind.

Americans' accounts of Election Day

Reading about recent attempts at citizen journalism that Colin brought to our attention, I was reminded of the PBS initiative, Video Your Vote, that we talked about briefly the night before the election. I went back to look at some of the coverage they received. I was unable to embed the video but this is the link. There are 66 videos featured there. I did not watch all of them but it seems most of them are reactions to Obama's win and celebrations.

There was a link to a twitter vote report which clearly demonstrates how these different online technologies are being used in conjunction with one another. Unfortunatly, it didn't help to increase my ability to use twitter, I found the page to be quite useless actually. I guess part of its intention was to update on wait times across the country which obvioulsy no longer applies, but it was not easy to glean any useful information from the page.

If you go to the actual youtube page from there, there is a map of where videos were received from, with a total of 2241. This is where there are accounts from people's actual voting experiences. What is interesting is that we knew about this PBS initiative, but I don't think it has come up in class or on anyone's blog since. So why is that? Do we not value what everyday citizens have to say? Do we prefer to hear it from a "credible/qualified" source? I think one drawback about the idea is that we expect everyday people to give us a lot of personal thoughts and reactions that we likely don't trust. We clearly have a distrust of some professional news sources as well but perhaps there is some comfort in the familiarity of the deliverer, their earned right to be there, and some sort of attempt at being neutral. This is all speculation but I have some difficulty believing in it.

Twitter-ing

Like many of us in the class, I signed up for Twitter, and so far haven't gotten much out of it. The feature that checks your email contacts against twitter users is pretty neat, but didn't serve me well considering 1 person in my contacts uses it. From there, trying to find people that aren't in my contacts (I was trying to search for some of you) did not prove to be as easy as I thought. When I tried to use the find people function, it continued to search my contacts again. I think I have to agree with Mike and Kasey and say that Facebook is much more user friendly. Twitter seems to take only one aspect that facebook offers (status updates) and does it less effectively. I am going to continue to spend some time with it and maybe my feelings will change, but I have to figure out how to find people first. For any of you who have discovered how that works, my username is mcdain.

Online "Friends"

At some point earlier this semester we talked about ways reporters were trying to measure audience response in the presidential debates. They are pushing ways to quanitify emotions and reactions of humans in a machine like way. I was reminded of this by the article about Twitter. The author envisions twitter being used in a similiar way:

If you could have a few hundred or a few thousand people Twittering their observations on what was happening, and then somehow assemble them into a cohesive whole. You could get a more meaningful and perhaps more accurate read of what the crowd felt or the “mood” than any single journalist could provide, whether with camera, microphone or by writing.

In an ideal world, perhaps. He does say that he suggests people find a way to use it intelligently and for the benefit of others, but I think this is giving the general public a little too much credit. Or is it?

The article in the NYT demonstrates jsut how responsive people can be when something grabs their interest or something is at stake for them (privacy, etc). I think this article demonstrates how much power these online communities have, and have the potential to have. In our changing times with these new technologies available, it seems it is crucial to figure out how to use them to your advantage no matter what area that is. To add a personal and somewhat relevant anecdote, I recently received a facebook friend request from a priest at my church that presided over my sisters wedding. He is young, probably early 30s, and at first I was admittedly weirded out by it. After exploring his page and realizing that he had old high school friends to reconnect with, just like someone in any other profession, I accepted the request. So reporter or priest, new online technology can serve you in some way.

What might Bush and Obama have in common?

This LA Times blogger has noticed that Obama has broken the record for interviews given by a president elect, but none of them have been with Fox nor has he called on Fox representatives for questions at news conferences. Obama commented on his portrayal by Fox during the campaign saying:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New
York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"

He hits on something important here, confronting the persona that the channel chose for him, unrelated to his politics and policies. It seems he may be avoiding them not for fear that their question may trip him up or make him look bad, but only because they deliberately tried to make him look bad. As much as I have said I think confrontation can be healthy, it requires cooperation from both sides and I can't blame Obama for assuming he won't get it from Fox.

The end of the blog makes an interesting parallel, talking about Bush's refusal to talk to the NYT in all of his time in the White House possibly being connected to his extremely low approval rating.

Long-term vindictiveness is not a viable political communications strategy for those who've won elections. As Bush's exit era sub-basement approval ratings might suggest. But officeholders must learn that lesson for themselves. Or not.

Whether or not Obama remains "vindictive" and whether or not it matters, remains to be seen.

The (lost) Art of Compromise

In sorting through the articles and commentaries on talk radio and the conservative media, I noticed that the information is coming from the opposing sides and sources that are openly aligned one way or the other. They are criticizing each other and pointing the fingers, but what are they accomplishing? I would venture to say that each side is trying to push their side of the story to a larger audience to eventually drown out their opposition. In one of the articles Colin posted, Woolley says the "'Fairness Doctrine' is an Orwellian name for shutting up the opposition." That was said in terms of the Democrats shutting up Republicans, but it seems to me that the Republicans ultimately would have the same goal as they continue attacks on the liberal press.

What I percieve to be the issue here is that there is a lot of yelling and banter from either side but little listening and dialogue about the yelling. There is no attempt at compromise for the good of Americans, but only an attempt at furthering ones own political party at the expense of another.

Choosing your battles

I was at first somewhat perturbed by Dan Shelley's tell all on talk radio. Controlling your callers and playing victim to liberals as a means of keeping your audience numbers up is a little unsettling. But then I tried to think of other media cirumstances where similiar tactics are employed. The first thing that came to mind was presidential press conferences and the ability to ask questions. In this forum, depending on which side of the fence you are preceived to be representing, you can be granted more or less access to the president. During the election the McCain campaign was choosy about who could talk to Sarah Palin. It seems this tactic is somewhat natural to us as humans, we don't want to get into a fight that we know we are going to lose. But does that make it ok to avoid certain confrontations in positions of public service? I would say no. For news organizations and public officials confrontation can be a healthy and productive means of engagement. The problem is we are so caught up in winning, or coming out on top of ratings that we have often lost sight of those goals.

To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms.

As for the victim role that talk radio employs, all I can say is do something about it. Personally I have little tolerance for complaints if you aren't trying to change the circumstances surrounding them. What are the hosts really doing to empower anyone? The only thing they seem to be accomplishing is further fragmenting Americans. But where does responsibility for that lie? In the host themselves or the people who choose to listen to them?

Barack Obama lifts '60 Minutes' rating to best since 1999

The above headline of an LA Times blog caught my eye because it mentions nothing of the content or substance of the interview, it merely addresses the impact Obama's presence on 60 minutes had on the show. not on Americans, but on the ratings. Now we can assume that because so many Americans watched that it was an impressive and important interview that kept their attention and gave them reason to watch.

The actual story in the LA Times took a different perspective, one I would expect to see reporting on the interview. I have to admit I was not one of the millions who tuned in to watch the interview on CBS, but I was somehow comforted by Obama's admission that he is feeling a little overwhelmed and confesses "there are times, during the course of a given a day, where you think, 'Where do I start?' " That has abeen a question in my mind since the election, trying to imagine someone in his postition with such daunting tasks ahead. That display of humanity somehow makes me trust him more than if he were to deny any anxiety.

Looking ahead

At the risk of being redundant, we have figured out this semester that the media is about the media. Even the non-profit NPR falls into this. A lot of us have posted about NPR or stories they have covered this week, which in itself is interesting, but I want to talk about a segment that speculates about the Obama administrations relationship with the press given his campaigns accessibility. Some say that accessibility was well calculated rather than a constant green light to fire questions at the candidate but he was able to make it appear that way.

This story leads into the technology discussion. How the internet has changed the face of news and the way we communicate (with each other and the president with us) about the news.

The Obama White House is expected to hold more press conferences than did the
Bush White House. Transition team spokeswoman Psaki says the old-fashioned media outlets still matter, because so many Americans still get their news from them. But, she says, "We have certainly tapped into a willingness and a desire by
the American people to receive constant news updates and the news in its raw
form — you know, the original speech, the video of the event.

I think it will be interesting to see how the president in 4 or 8 years uses technology and the media. By then, the older generation will presumably be more accustomed to these mediums.

Its all about the bottom line

I was intrigued by the article Colin posted about imposters who invent stories to try and pass off as news and see what legit news sources run with it. It got me thinking about other issues we discussed during the election. We all know that tehcnology has allowed this election to be so quick, it was nearly impossible to stay on top of and that the face of news was changed by new mediums that allow almost anyone to be a "reporter." Until reading this article, I wouldn't have considered speed and accessibility to have a negative impact on how news is reported. That perspective has changed now. News outlets are now so anxious to be the first to report something that they are risking their credibility by neglecting the credibility of their information and their sources. In that regard, I think the integrity of the press is at great risk. We have talked about the press is about the press, and that is certainly evident here. The bottom-line business mentality is taking over. Forget honest and in-depth, or fast and dependable. The only thing that still applies is fast.

Addicted to the Election

So I admit, this piece has little to nothing to do with actual coverage of the election or post-election. But I was drawn in because of the title "So much else happened while people eyed election." A lot of the things they mention were in some ways tied to the election (war and national security) and not overlooked, but I think the title at least, is a testament to just how wrapped up in this election voters (although not as many as predicted) were. Because of the fast pace of the technology and the rapid spread of information, trying to stay up-to-date could have been a full time job. So what now? How do we fill all the new-found free time? For some, like this blogger on HuffingtonPost, "I had more free time to enjoy pastimes like eating, sleeping, and watching Food Network." But what interested me more about this particular blog was an article he points to called "Campaign Withdrawal." Turns out you can be addicted to this stuff.

Dr. Petros Levounis, director of the Addiction Institute of New York at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital, said such obsessions stimulate the pleasure-reward pathways in the brain, working in a similar way to drugs or alcohol. “There’s no question that someone can develop a strong habit in following these political campaigns,” Levounis said. “And when the campaign is over, they get a sense of emptiness, or a letdown, something missing in their lives.” He said doctors had seen similar reactions to TV shows such as “American Idol.”

The First Daughters

This story isn't fraught with political drama, but it certainly caught my interest. Aside from reporting on Michelle Obama's visit to the White House this afternoon, the piece addresses the question of where Sasha and Malia will go to school. The future First Lady is scheduled to tour Georgetown Day School and also rumored to be considering Sidwell Friends where Chelsea Clinton attended school. All well and good, but expected right? The President's daughters will go to teh best private school money can buy. Or maybe not.

There are also signs that the Obama family may be looking at D.C. public schools. One clue: Lafayette Elementary School in Northwest Washington, D.C. got a curious phone call late last week. The person on the line wanted to know what the process is for enrolling children who don’t live within the school’s boundaries.

This appears to be based only on a phone call that was placed to the school but the caller never gave a name, only gave 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as the address. We can't say whether or not it is true but it would certainly be an interesting statement from the Obama's. With faith in public education dwindling, particularly in urban areas, this could send a message.

Update

A follow-up to my Post Election Palin Post. I talked about how Campell Brown had in criticizing McCain staffers, defended Palin. Palin has now stepped out to defend herself. McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, also spoke in her defense saying "The real Sarah Palin is not the caricature put out by these dishonest leakers. The reality is she is a tough, capable, knowledgeable and focused politician. . . . Whoever these people are and whatever position they had in the campaign, they certainly never had John McCain's best interests at heart." Personally, I don't know who to believe but it sounds more like high school drama than national politics.

An Interesting Phenomenon

Barack has already caught on. And I don't mean the President elect, I mean the name Barack. it seems that although it has been referred to as "a funny name," parent's are proud to bestow it upon their children. And if it's a girl, how about Sasha or Malia?

Post Election Palin

Now that the election is over, Palin is being defended (sort of) by the media. McCain staffers have let loose on their complaints and horror stories about the Governor. They have no quams about discussing their disappointment and oftentimes, disgust at her behavior. Campbell Brown came to her defense saying "you picked her." It seems they are so eager to play the blame game and and unwilling to accept any responsibility themselves. It is nice to see that the media is acknowledging that when they have often been so willing to join the party (as we have seen from Fox News this week). Another issue I have with this whole drama is that they chose a candidate they obviously didn't believe in and then tried to sell her to American voters. Maybe you should have done the research first.



Her approval rating in Alaska has fallen from 80% to 65% and the state has some struggles to look forward to with a Senator who is facing a felony corruption conviction adn falling oil prices. How she deals with these issues and if she can bounce back from her run at VP may determine her future in national politics.

Stewart Tries Again

There are two major themes in post Election Day coverage. The first of which is the subject of race. Colin mentioned Jon Stewart's joke that kinda bombed on Wednesday but he came back on Thursday with some help. Like we talked about on the humor night of our class, comedians tend to have people on their shows to make jokes that they themselves can't. That's what happened last night on the Daily Show. I think the interplay of the two worked.

The difference here is that these jokes weren't directed at Obama. In fact, his name is only mentioned once at the beginning of the segment to provide context for "Black Liberal Guilt."

Following the Winner....and Loser

With so much to look forward to with Obama's presidency approaching, it is no surprise to media is still on his tail. The fact that he has begun choosing members of his cabinet, beginning with Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, is certainly newsworthy, but Americans also want to know what he did after the vistory. The above article states that he worked out at a private gym near his home before presiding over meetings with his campaign staff.

On the other end of the spectrum, McCain isn't out of the spotlight just yet. He was spotted walking to a local Starbucks to (gasp) buy his own coffee. Friends of McCain describe him as "extremely happy." While he won't be moving to teh Whitehouse, he is also looking forward to returning to returning to work and apparently planning a trip to Afghanistan.

Initial Thoughts

As I am flipping through channels watching election coverage, I almost feel as if I am surfing the net. I am bombarded with information and numbers and to some degree, distracted. The layout on the screen reminds me of a webpage, with various boxes and areas devoted to different races. Obviously there is a lot going on tonight and a lot to cover, but the constant flashing of local races at the bottom and numbers for the presidency just above that and finally, the picture of the actual news cast is kind of driving me nuts. I am watching CBS as I write this but most of the stations are similiar. I actually think that CBS (as compared to say NBC's spectical) is one of the cleaner straightforward presentations.

Sidenote, Katie Couric's tagline "It's election night in America." Sounds a lot like "it's morning in America."

Media Bias

We have all been talking and asking questions about the media's Democratic bias in this election. The Media Research Center: America's Media Watchdog has several stories on the issue. A conservative group, we all know what side they are taking. The founder and president of the organization had a pretty harsh statement to make about the situation:

Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the
“news” media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama.

Typically left wing organizations come to similiar conclusions, but certainly talk about it in very different terms. The tone here is much more defensive (as opposed to the offensive in the statment above). The historical framework that is presented in this article gives us the impression that bias is the nature of the beast and tenuous relationships with politicians is the nature of the beast (the media). It hasn't always been a left-leaning issue as highlighted by Bill Clinton's run ins with the press during his administration. I think the following statement about Howard Dean highlights some of the changes/problems that might be going on with the media:

After the 2004 presidential election, Howard Dean, a former frontrunner who
lost the Democratic primary battle, complained about corporate ownership of the
news media, the increased focus on entertainment, and the decline of
investigative reporting.

Backwards Bradley Effect

There has been talk in recent days of a fear that many voters polled say they will vote for Obama, but when they enter the booth, it will be a different story. This can turn a seemingly landslide victory into a nailbiter. Named after an African American candidate for Governor in 1982, some analysts are saying that this election will have a backwards Bradley effect--people will vote for Obama but won't reveal it in the exit polls. Another article talks to voters who see Obama's race as one of many reasons to vote for him.

Some regard casting a ballot for Barack Obama as a victory for diversity, an
atonement for past sins and a catalyst for racial healing. But they say race is
one of many reasons for their preference.

It seems race can be a factor in either direction come election day tomorrow. My question is, if these assertions are each true for parts of the voting population, will they simply cancel each other out?

Predicting the Future

At this point in the election, a lot of people think it's obvious Obama will win and just want it to be over so we can stopped being consumed by the campaigns. With that assumption in mind, reporters are looking past the election and talking about who the candidate's would choose as Cabinet members. The headline on Politco was directed toward the Democratic ticket's victory, but a McCain Cabinet was also speculated.

The Obama article has significantly more detail, and as each points out, they have had more opportunity (and reason) to talk to about potential appointments than McCain who is trying to play catch up. Stories like these are interesting because they are based in some observable facts, but can also later point to where observations are way off.

Arizona up for grabs?

I don't know if a presidential nominee has ever lost his home state, and I don't think John McCain wants to be the first. It was embarassing enough when Bush almost lost Florida where his brother was Governor. The story can be found in several places (including Arizona papers), as far as I can tell the Huffington Post was early to raise the question. I was surprised to see the headline at first and as I kept reading, I couldn't help but think about our discussions on how polls fuel stories and are stories themselves. This is certainly one of those instances as people speculate about what changed the stakes. Whatever it was, both candidates are certainly throwing some last minute money into AZ.

McCain as Nostradamus

This McCain ad is clearly looking to the future. With the state of the country and the economy today that is a huge concern for voters. I don't think there is much effectiveness in the way this ad looks to the future. It feels like a series of predictions, something you might see in a sci-fi movie rather than a presidential election ad. I feel like the voice is straight out of Star Wars. I know that these ads are limited on time, 30-60 seconds doesn't allow you to have much detail about how you plan to make these predictions a reality, but give me some substance.Otherwise I feel like I'm being fed what I want to hear, the typical promises from a politician that can't be fulfilled.



Here is a look at the future from Obama's campaign. I can't say that he gives a whole lot more substance than McCain, but the ad has a totally different effect. He includes the American people as participating in the prosperity of the future. The voice is soothing and confident. He uses the "hands" theme that ties the ad together and links the pride of history to the future. There is a call for collective responsibility to work towards a better future, as opposed to McCain doing it all himself.

He Lied

Somewhere along the lines, I was reading something about McCain's interview on "The View." I believe it was there that one of the women hosting the show used the term "lie" is some form to refer to a statement McCain had made. The author's point (sorry I can't figure out exactly where I read it) was that you wouldn't see this in traditional journalism. Exaggerated the truth, took it out of context, made a mis-statement, those are the phrases you typically hear when a "lie" is being talked about. For that reason, I was a little taken aback when I saw and heard he lied at the end of a McCain ad attacking Obama. That is a powerful and loaded phrase to throw out in an ad. When I say powerful, I don't mean to imply effective because I have a feeling it is quite the opposite, particularly since much of the discussion in the press about lies has been around McCain, not Obama.

The Political Circus

This ad has once again drawn the line connecting McCain and George W. I can't bring myself to take this very seriously. From the circus music to the hokey pictures used, in some way, I feel like it borderlines making a mockery of politics. I think the people who produced the ad (Service Employees International Union) would probably say it is McCain and Bush who have created much of the chaos and circustry (not an actual word) that is present in the political arena. I think I just have a hard time taking them seriously since they don't seem to be taking the election seriously. As our class discussions have certainly shown, there is a place for humor in this election, but I don't think ads is where voters want to see it.

Election Ads

I chose to look at this ad initially because it addresses and important aspect of what we have at stake this election year. On the website it is listed as a Republican ad, but that affiliation isn't clearly spelled out. It is paid for by the Vets for Freedom so we can assume a McCain allegiance but the dramatic end of the ad says "We need to finish the job, no matter who is president." Added to the audio is the visual of seeing the message in writing. It is clearly emphasized and trying to promote a bipartisan idea that it doesn't matter who does it but it must be done.

The other thing that was interesting to me about this ad, was that it reminded me of swift boat ads in 2004 that too aim at Kerry's military record. The choices in how the people each came on screen saying "I served in...I faught in" can be directly parelled with an ad where vets came on and each said "I served with John Kerry." For comparison here is that ad.

Polling Follow-Up

1. I think that it is appropriate to use wikipedia as a reference after our class discussion of it. This is a condensed version of some of the other links I provided in a previous post but it offers an answer to my question about past elections as well. Polls before the 1948 election predicted a landslide victory for Thomas Dewey over Harry Truman. Truman was the incumbent and apparently not very popular at the time. He led from the second votes started coming in, and even then was predicted to lose. I'm not sure how much relevance this has for us because I would assume that polling methods have changed in the last 60 years, but certainly an interesting turn of events.
2. In trying to answer some of the questions I posed in my last post on polls I came across this study. It isn't very recent (published 1993) but it uses the 1988 election as a case study. Dukakis led Bush in the polls by 17 points in the early stages of the general election. We all know what the outcome of that was. Bush was able to change the public's initial perceptions of Dukakis with the Willie Horton and other ads. I would like to concentrate on this conclusion the article makes:

"Finally, journalists should realize that they can report the polls all they want, and continue to make incorrect causal inferences about them, but they are not helping to predict or even influence the election. Journalists play a critical role in enabling voters to make decisions based on the equivalent of explicitly enlightened preferences. Unfortunately, by focusing more on the polls and meaningless campaign events, the media are spending more and more time on 'news' that has less and less of an effect."

I think this statement can be applied narrowly to just the early polls (say just after the conventions and before). The current election and the 1988 one support that polls at this time are not accurate indicators of the outcome and that the general campaiging does matter. We sometimes hear people talking about how people have already made up there minds long before we get to the election, but if polls are any indicator, that is not the case. So, I don't think this conclusion can be applied at all points in the general campaign.

Dancing with the Stars

A blogger on the LA Times included this, clearly as a joke, saying Palin and Obama "join in unusual bipartisan moves." I think that images like this can be useful for us. At a time when there is so much to be concerned about and so much at stake for Americans, it is human nature to want to have a few laughs in the midst of grave reality. I don't think it undermines the seriousness of the issues we face, I think it makes them easier for us to face. I hope you all get a laugh out of this. Thank god for photoshop.

FYI

I wanted to find out more about how polls are conducted and came across this site. I think it does a fairly good job of explaining some of the criteria polls have to adhere to and answers FAQ. This is another one that was helpful.

Polls

So we have all heard that Obama has pulled ahead by 9 points in the latest polls. As I was reading this article about it, a few questions came to mind. I'm not sure who might be able to answer some of these, but I'll throw them out anyway.

• This particular poll interviewed just over 1500 people, not all of whom were even registered and even less who were "deemed likely to vote." Clearly the idea is that these people are random and somehow representative of the population as a whole. I am curious to the logistics of this. How are these people chosen and contacted? I would just like to know more about the process.
• In past elections how accurate have polls at this point (3 weeks out) been in predicting the actual outcome?
• Have their been times when one candidate had a substantial (or comparable to Obama) lead 3 weeks out and lost?

I am going to see if I can find some answers to those questions so I'll keep you updated.

Facebook in the Election

I know it has been mentioned in some capacity on at least one other person's blog, and I think Facebook and other social networking sites offers an interesting dynamic to the campaign. It is yet another place where supporters (and critics) can publish their thoughts/ideas/obsessions about candidates. Important issues in the election show up in the various political groups out there. This group is called "That One 08." You can buy t-shirts and stickers that publicize the statement McCain made, perhaps as a dig at Obama, to support Obama. i think this is a great example of controling something and using it for your own purposes because this was certainly not the intent McCain had when he referred to Obama is "that one" if he had any intent at all.

So as to be fair and balanced, I did a facebook search for a McCain group. I was unable to find one that was premised on anything Obama had said/done, but there were many groups for his supporters to join. I randomly picked one to check out. One thing noticeable here I didn't see on most Obama pages, was the other candidates supporters writing messages bashing McCain. I think that is a positive thing for young voters. They have a place to interact with their peers and express their ideas about the candidates. Our generation has been criticized for being apathetic and uninvolved and maybe this will be a way they can change that through an all too familiar medium.

It seems Clinton and Palin are being compared time and again. This video from cnn.com looks at both sides and asks women why they support who they do (Clinton or Palin). The conclusion I draw from this particular piece is that for some, just being a woman certainly doesn't earn you the female vote. But being a politician, wife, and mother and exuding femininity while doing it is something that (some) women respect.



Similiarly, being black, doesn't automatically earn Obama the black vote.

SNL

I am sure everyone has heard by now that SNL is doing live updates starting tonight for a total of 6 live shows in the next 4 weeks. I guess there is more material then they can keep up with in a weekly show. They have recently come under criticism for "having a secret political agenda." It seems people are confusing Saturday Night Live with Saturday Night News. The show does not claim to present any facts or news, it is comedy, it is entertainment. The executive producer, Lorne Michaels is "amused by the influence attributed to the late-night variety show." My question is the criticism really a result of people thinking it sways voters, or are people (certain candidates) just upset because it makes them look bad? I would tend toward the latter.

The candidates who are being spoofed are essentially handing the material to SNL writers, so much so that some people have said it writes itself. The show then adds its own "spin" if you will, no differently than a real news program. If you are a public figure, political or otherwise, you are bound to be the butt of a couple jokes.

#2

As I was watching the debate last night, I was annoyed by the bickering over time and who talked longer that was part of the "town hall" format. And apparently so were others . I understand that there have to be constraints to make the debate fair and relatively civil. What got to me is the candidates constantly wanted to respond, had things to say as rebuttal or clarification and the format was not conducive to that. Everytime Brokaw had to intervene I felt like there was something I was missing that I wanted to or needed to hear. John Dickerson had this to say about it on Slate :

Town halls are supposed to be freewheeling and probing. This format was dull, and the constant ankle-biting between the candidates compounded the problem.

Most coverage agrees that neither shined, and while Obama seems to have edged out McCain, there was no clear winner.

The Power of Suggestion

I receive an email everyday from the LA Times that is a Campaign Briefing. It gives me the major news stories from their paper and a brief, 2 line synopsis. The synopsis for this article brought a question to mind immediately. It read "McCain intensifies his attack on Obama's past and character, and Obama returns the favor. The tactics may not resonate with voters in a time of crisis." While I don't think this is anything radical or unexpected, it had me asking, what impact does the media suggesting that this strategy won't resonate with voters have on how voters receive the article? I think it immediately plants a seed in teh readers mind adn sets up an expectation. While this may be of small consequence in this particular case, I think it happens often.

Who's behind it all?

We have all seen movies like The American President that show the interactions between the president and his closest advisors. There are often disagreements, advice from one side on what to do, and a disregard of the advice from teh president. I have often wondered what this relationship looks like in reality. Who is actually making the tactical decisions and directing the campaign (or administartion)? The LA Times gave readers a glimpse of the man behind the scenes for John McCain. It raises some questions as to who is responsible for certain choices (for example "Schmidt pressed McCain to pluck the Alaska governor from obscurity.Other than the candidates, no one in the operation has more riding on that decision than Schmidt. " "Under Schmidt, the campaign is a tightly run operation. Previously, McCain allowed reporters almost unfettered access. Under Schmidt, the candidate went 40 days without a news conference.") My next question is, even if the ideas don't belong to the candidate, should they still take sole responsibility? I think so.

While looking for additional info on Schmidt, I cam across a website called Source Watch. At first glance, it looks a lot like Wikipedia. It is "A project for the Center for Media and Democracy" and its tagline is "Your source for the names behind the news." An interesting resource.

Anticipation and Disappointment

So we all know the VP debate was highly anticipated because most people expected Palin to fall on her face. It was being called "politically pivotal." But that was before it happened. Following the debate it was almost a disappointment for some because it was relatively anticlimactic compared to predictions. It seems that it didn't deliver in either or these categories, the general consensus being now that it won't have too much impact on the election, having only "stopped the bleeding" for the McCain-Palin ticket (a phrase used by many in the media) and presented an even-keeled Biden who made jokes about his reputation.

The dynamic between the hyped up anticipation, record setting audience (for VP debates), and relatively blase result interests me. It seems the media controlled much of this and certainly played a role in shaping ideas about it and then were disappointed with the result. I almost felt like people wanted her to fall on her face because it would make a good story and give them something to talk about. There is something disconcerting about that.

Anne Kilkenny

Anne Kilkenny has garnered a lot of attention for this email about Sarah Palin she sent to 40 of her friends. Now she is the feature of an article in the LA Times, was interviewed for an article in the NY Times, was able to post her letter on Huffington Post's site, and the list goes on. This is a really good example of how far and how fast information can travel these days. It also defies the top-down hierarchy we talked about in class. Her email was passed on and forwarded to thousands which eventually got the attention of the mainstream press. I may be careful what I say in mass emails from now on. But it was a story circulating through emails, making it to facebook and other blogs first. I know I received it shortly after the convention.

What also interested me about this story is the concept of credibility. Kilkenny is not a member of the press and does not have connections with either campaign. She is an average Alaskan who happens to have direct experience with Palin as a politician. She claims she doesn't necessarily have an agenda, but she thinks voters have a right, even an obligation, to be informed about the candidates. She was willing to be that informant. Of course she has her supposrters and her critics , but the press seems to be taking her seriously. My question is what makes her credible? The fact that she dealt with Palin's politics in Wasilla? The fact that her story has made it into major new sources? When I received the email, i read through some of it but mostly disregarded it as some disgruntled person ranting and exaggerating a "version" of the truth. Having seen her story in the papers and having the context I think I would take it differently now.

Right On

It appears that our class could serve as writers for Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart's shows. If anyone happen to see either of their shows last night, there were several parts that were virtually identical to our class discussion. Olbermann showed the same comparison clip of Tina Fey and Sarah Palin that we discussed in class. Here is what they had to say.



Stewart had an interesting segment where he talked about the "perception analyzer." I can't find the clip of this portion of the show but here is the full episode and it starts about 3 minutes in. he is basically saying that the media is trying to make us machines. Hooking us up to these devices that can measure our every thought and reaction. Sound familiar?

Really?

I understand people's criticism of McCain's strategy last week of postponing the debate for the sake of bailout negotiations. And I can even understand why the House didn't vote to pass the bailout plan. But conversely, I do not think this is okay. After rejecting the $700 billion plan, members of Congress are themselves bailing to campaign. I have to believe you are doing your supporters and the people of your state more of a service by coming up with a plan asap. Maybe securing the financial future of voters will earn you as many or more votes than being out on the campaign trail.

The Debate Minus the Facts

Another interesting piece that probably wouldn't exist without the internet. This article on Slate includes the text from the debate, minus all of the facts presented by each candidate. Facts being defined as anything that can be checked. It is a new way of talking about the debate because the reader can see where statements were redacted as facts, and there aren't many of them. Accuracy of facts also didn't come in to play with this article. The media can now in many ways manipulate what went on to prove a point or just raise questions. I think quantifying information can have a big impact on how we process something that can be as cumbersome as a 90 minute debate on big issues.

The question of this article is whether facts impact how the audience received the debate. Do we care about the numbers and figures candidates bring up, or are we just interested in "the rhetoric that strings the facts together?" If I were to make a conclucion based on the evidence of this article, I would say we are interested in the rhetoric. Or at least the candidates think we are. But is that anything new?

Marriage in the Election

This is just a guess, but I would imagine this is a story you would be unlikely to read in a traditional news source. Not only because there is a clear and biased agenda as the reader is told to "Elect Barack Obama," but the stated reason to do so is unusual. It has nothing to do with his foresight or leadership qualities. This assertion is based on his relationship with his wife. Talk about getting personal. But unlike the personal allegations we typically see of politicians (and several recent presidents as the article points out), this is all positive. Imagine that.

What was interesting to me is that for so long Clinton supporters said it didn't matter what was going on in his bedroom as long as he was doing his job as president. But apparently now it matters. What has changed? Divorce rates were high in the 90's, kids were subjected to bitter custody battles and warring spouses then too. But now that the country is in the midst of a real war and huge financial difficulties, we hold our president and his wife to a higher standard. I'm not saying by any means this is bad or unfair, but the fact that someone (democrats) is commenting on it presents an interesting dynamic.

The authors are a couple who are relationship experts which in and of itself is unusual and new. Before blogs they wouldn't have a political voice. They are offering a dynamic that traditional journalists may not necessarily want to/feel the need to comment on but maybe it is important. I don't think we can foresee what kind of impact a healthy, loving couple in the White House might have on this country, but I would venture to say it won't be a negative one. What is clear from this post is that the playing field has changed.

Jumping Ahead

I know that this is something we are going to discuss in a couple weeks, but it was brought up on CNN's Reliable Sources this morning. Kurtz was talking to his guests about the impact of having someone like David Letterman against you in this election. They seemed to think Letterman took it too far, bringing it up time after time on his show. Kurtz also brought up The View's heavy criticism of McCain and asked what kind of role pop culture might play in this election. The general consensus was that it won't make much difference and that pop culture has had the same liberal bias in past elections.

Debating the Debate

I was able to watch a portion of the debate last night and I will try to keep any of my own opinions out of this post. What I would like to talk about is the coverage I have seen so far. I have been watching msnbc who has had a variety of journalists' commentary and there is certainly a battle line drawn. The ones with a reputation of a liberal bias think Obama won and and conservatives think McCain did. The LA Times says Obama should be satisfied in what could be called a tie on at least one topic (foriegn policy) that was supposed to favor McCain dramatically. Most say that it was one of the most substanitive debates in recent history, which is encouraging. More to come later...

Continued...

Just to add to my last post. On msnbc they are talking to Ari Fleischer who thinks McCain is putting himself in a good position. He has the power to convince conservatives in Washington to accept a "rescue plan" (which is apparently the preferred term). So far, this has been the only news source I have come across that says outright, that McCain is doing the right thing. Obama says that this is the time when Americans need to hear from potential leaders and the debate should go on. Fleischer suggests a change of topic for Friday, to the economy perhaps?

Putting Americans First

McCain's recent proposal to postpone Friday's debate and suspend campaigning so that an agreement can be reached to solve the current financial crisis is encouraging to me. Although i have to admit, I think I am somewhat jaded from following all of this coverage. I want to believe that McCain's request is sincere, that he is truly more concerned about the welfare of all Americans than say, winning the debate. But I'm skeptical. I have to wonder if this is just another calculated move to win votes? And if it is, and it still does Americans good, is there anything wrong with that? I'm inclined to say no. His intentions aside, if it works, then I'm for it.

Democrats in office clearly don't agree with me. They think it's all a ploy, that presidential politics shouldn't be involved, and that the government has to be able to deal with multiple issues at once. I think the latter is the only one I can firmly agree with but we also need priorities. They haven't been able to come up with a solution so far, and I would imagine time is of the essence here. He isn't trying to bail on the debate, he just wants to have it later.

"Tripping from link to link to link"

I liked the quote and title of this post in Carr's article. It caught my attention because I think there is truth in the analogy. When we are surfing the web and going from link to link, we are at the mercy of where these links take us. Most of us begin surfing with some intention or ultimate goal, but it is a trial and error process. We don't know exactly where we are going to land next. I I think this process could be compared to searching the old fashioned card catalog at a library. You have limited indicators about what you'll find, so you follow it until it is no longer useful to you. The number of links and ease of following them is certainly quite different than chasing books in a library. I think it is important to consider the history the Carr outlines and consider what other technologies have influenced our way of thinking and our lifestyles.

Winning a Debate: All About Rhetoric?

We have touched on the idea that people typically want to vote for someone they can relate to. They want someone who talks like them and sees things the way they do. People are turned off by a candidate who speaks in terms they can't understand. I think this is an interesting conundrum because most Americans would presumably admit that they want someone smarter than them in office, but apparently they don't want them to appear smarter.

These thoughts were prompted by a piece on "The Huffington Post." What I get out of it is that candidates have to dumb themselves down to win debates. Romm says Obama could have trouble because he has made a reputation for himself of being "an over-educated smart talker." McCain, prior to allegations of being liar, had a reputation as a straight-talker and so overall the debates should favor him because in a debate it is more important to appear believeable because "if I don't convince you I'm honest, my stated policy positions can't possibly matter."

Romm continues at length about why this is so, going back to the Greeks and Shakespeare. What is disconcerting is that he is confirming one of the most frequent accusations of politics and politicians, that it is all "just rhetoric." What they say and the way they say things is all an attempt to win our votes, it isn't coming from their core values and beliefs as a leader of the people. But as the intended audience and the decisionmakers after the debates, who can we blame but ourselves?

What you see on Cable News

Cable news shows are certainly a different format and use a different approach to news than network stations. Cable news is sometimes watched for its entertainment value and the controversy and drama that unfolds. I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg, but this is certainly influenced by their choice in topics:

To put that into perspective, if one were to have watched five hours of
cable news, one would have seen about:
35 minutes about campaigns and elections
36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
26 minutes or more of crime
12 minutes of accidents and disasters
10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment
On the other hand, one would have seen:
1 minute and 25 seconds about the environment
1 minute and 22 seconds about education
1 minute about science and technology 3 minutes and 34 seconds about the economy
3 minutes and 46 seconds about health and health care

These choices reflect a psychological approach to programming. They are using people's emotions as a means to draw them in and hopefully keep them watching. Just like a bad accident, we can't help but keep our eyes glued to the fighting that sometimes breaks out on cable programs. And this is what is on 18 hours a day. The issues that people care about, but mostly agree on (at least agree that these things need fixed) see very little airtime because they are boring in comparison to the charged conversations about controversial topics. Is it fair for cable to virtually neglect these important issues because they don't boost ratings? Are we being cheated?

A Correction to my Last Post

It seems an assumption I made in my last post, is not accurate. I reasoned that the decline in newspaper readership being significant through class, gender, and education was also true for the increase in internet news. As it turns out, the increase in internet news consumption does discriminate:

Since 2006, daily online news use has increased by about a third, from 18% to 25%. However, as the online news audience grows, the educational divide in online news use - evident since the internet's early days in the mid-1990s - also is increasing. Currently, 44% of college graduates say they get news online every day, compared with just 11% of those with a high school education or less.

There are certainly some conclusions we can draw from this which I touched on in my last post. But the questions I am inclined to ask are, how does this change the news that different education adn income groups are receiving? We have talked about in class how the age of the internet has changed our experience of getting news, so what does that mean for people who can't access it? Does it even matter?

Even McCain doesn't read the paper

We all know that the number of people who read actual newspapers is declining. I would venture to say that 95% or so of our class is getting our news for our blogs online. But we are young students who are being educated in the online era. I wouldn't expect my grandmother (maybe even my mother) to use the internet as a primary news source. But it seems that newspaper readership among the elderly is also falling.

Newspaper readership, like paid circulation, continues to decline. And this trend is true for nearly every demographic group, regardless of age, ethnicity, education or income. Young people continue to shun the newspaper. In 2007, just 33% of 18-to-24-year-olds and just 34% of 25-to-34-year-olds read a newspaper in an average week, according to data from Scarborough Research.9 This represents a decline of seven and six percentage points, respectively, since 2000. But the largest drop in readership is seen among those ages 35 to 44: since 2000 they have seen a 10 percentage point drop, from 53% to 43%. Even the elderly, newspapers’ most loyal readers, are losing interest in the newspaper, though at a slightly slower pace. Weekly readership among those over 65 has declined six percentage points since 2000, to 66%.

Prior to reading this, I would have thought that online news sources would be somewhat discriminatory as to who they would attract. For one, access to the internet is not always affordable. Secondly, but related to that, not everyone receives the oppurtunity to learn how to use the internet as part of their education. I am making an assumption here that drops in readership=increase in online news. So are more people jsut neglecting the news altogether?

Censoring Palin

The support Palin has enjoyed from her home state seems to be dwindling. The McCain campaign has taken increased control over who has access to what concerning her time as govenor. This has gone from an issue between the campaign and the media to one between Alaskans and Palin. She is being accused of hypocritical actions. Prior to her selection as Republican VP nominee, she prided herself on seeing past party lines and doing what was necessary for Alaskans. She is now withholding information and accessibility from the people who put her in office, and they aren't pleased.

The McCain-Palin ticket seems to be being reactive rather than proactive. The talk starts without them and then they are forced to enter the conversation in a defensive way. If a campaign's objective is to "control the narrative," the McCain camp seems to be trying, but failing. In limiting what gets out and who is allowed to talk, they are helping to create more negative narrative. Alaskans are turned off by the power that has suddenly showed up as a middle man. They don't want to go through outside sources to get information about their own government. A reasonable complaint.

Hockey Mom gone too far?

I don't know who's idea this poster was or who is distributing it but I just wanted to share it with the class.

From http://www.mccainblogette.com/

Family in the Election

In my daily wanderings of campaign coverage, I came across another story that ventures into an "off-limits" area. Family was brought up in our class discussion as what perhaps should be, but isn't an untouchable area for candidates. The family member in this story, Meghan McCain, is choosing to become part of campaign coverage. She has been traveling to promote her book "My Dad, John McCain" a recent addition to the New York Times Best Seller list. In doing so she certainly entertains questions and conversation about her Dad and keeps her own blog.

What i find interesting about this article is that she is "the only one of McCain's seven children to campaign actively for him." She is the only one I have ever seen or heard anything about and I have to wonder why that is. Is it simply because she chooses to speak to the media and her siblings decline? How come the media hasn't forged into the lives of his other children? And most puzzling for me, why aren't his other kids actively supporting his campaign?

McCain's Health

While McCain is certainly older than Obama and has a known history of disease, the reality is that anyone, at anytime can be victim to disease, cancer, heart-attack or otherwise. We discussed what should be/is off limits in presidential elections, and medical records is one I would consider putting on that list. I'm sure many would disagree with me, after all the president has perhaps the most demanding and stressful job out there. I just happen to think, despite the "lies" that are circulating, we have to have some trust when it comes to this issue. There is a process for doctor's to perform physicals and necessary tests on the president to ensure they are healthy and I think that should be enough. We have had a president with a physical handicap that had it been public knowledge, probably wouldn't have been elected. But he found a way to do his job.

I do think this issue has a different place in the discussion because of McCain's choice for VP, but that is a whole nother can of worms.

Obama "Controlling the Narrative"

After so much controversy and mud-slinging in the past week or so, the Obama campaign releases a new ad that acknowledges that fact, and then refuses to do the same. He brings the conversation back to the reasons he is running and the reasons voters should pick him on election day. He is looking directly at his audience and speaking to them, a recognizable attempt to circumvent the media. He is clearly reaching out to voters as one of the people, speaking from an ordinary looking living room that could be yours or mine. As a somewhat undecided voter, I certainly felt persuaded, even if only because there was no mention of McCain or Palin. It was strictly about his campaign, not his opponents.

It seems that Palin and Hillary's joint appearance on SNL will not become a reality. Clinton withdrew plans to attend a rally in New York after "organizers blindsided her" by inviting Palin. While clearly a story rooted in facts, it also seems to be trying to stir up controversy.

Fact vs. Fiction

This idea has become a conitinuing theme in the campaigns and the coverage of them. This article suggests why/how this has been enabled. The introduction adn flourishing of new mediums (such as this one) have allowed information to flow more freely and with less evidence to substantiate it. The traditional media and the candidates aren't necessarily the only ones responsible for the less than truthful statements out there.

Election Competition. And not between the candidates.

What the media has been covering (issues vs. silliness) during this election has been a point of contention and a criticism directed at the press. Now the press has decided to cover themselves. The LA Times printed a story about the competition between broadcast news and cable programs. Prompted by Palin's choice to do an interview with Charles Gibson on ABC, the argument about which side is better at what they do has ensued. There is certainly a changing of tides as cables stations garnered nearly as many viewers as the networks during the conventions.

Each side is depending on their presentation of the news winning out over the other.
" All of us at CBS and NBC and ABC are able to describe, illuminate and inform in a very creative way, and that differentiates us from what goes on on cable," said Kaplan, who previously served as president of CNN and MSNBC." I guess the news isn't just the news. We are watching not only for what is being presented, but how. There certainly is some layering going on here.

"Truth" in Election Coverage

The word "truth" came up repeatedly on Campbell Brown last night (9/9). The icon in the corner of the screen read "The Truth about Sarah Palin." One of the commentators said their job (the media) is "to find out the truth about the candidates and their positions, we dont't care who it hurts." A segment of the show confronted rumors about Palin's records that have been circulating and told viewers whether or not they are true. One of those rumors was that she cut educational funding for special needs kids. It turns out that this particular one was not true and she had actually increased funding.
The concept of truth in the media is interesting because there is often an assumption that coverage is skewed or isn't telling the whole story, or the whole "truth." In this context, truth implies some subjective interpretation for me. I think of it as a personal term that is influenced by what a particular person values. I tend to question what is being framed as the "truth" because it is one person's version of it. As a viewer and a voter, I want to hear the facts about a candidate and from there I can decide what is true based on my own values.