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.