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.