2008: A novel by Daniel G [EDITED]

As I watched "Orwell Rolls in His Grave," (summary) I couldn't help but wonder so many things about not only the facts that were being stated, but also the way in which the story was being presented.

In the documentary, Robert Kane Pappas tries to support his theory that the media no longer reports the news, but instead it shapes the news and therefore what is important and how it is dealt with. Although I was convinced of this by the end of the film, I was surprised by many of the statements made by those being interviewed, and the tactics that Pappas used in trying to persuade the viewer.

Although there are many people who are shown in the film, Charles Lewis, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders take, in my opinion, center stage and get most of the air time. While all of these are good choices for a film about the government involvement in the media, they all each pose their own problems as well.

Lewis, a former producer of "60 Minutes," has dedicated his life to journalism and most recently has focused his energy on reporting the workings of government and politics. When he left his job as producer on "60 Minutes," Lewis openly expressed his frustrations with the state of the media and what 'news" was and wasn't being reported. While I don't doubt that Lewis is a legitimate expert in this field, giving him so much airtime on the documentary seemed to me like an unfair effort at driving home the point. Lewis, with his flashy former title under his name and passionate and confident speech, is able to persuade the viewer in ways matched (and possibly passed) only by Michael Moore.

Moore, famous for his films which attack American society and the government, is an extraordinarily strong and persuasive figure in general and in the documentary. He is able to convince the viewer that he is right, not solely based on the facts which he presents, but also based on the way in which he states his points. Moore, like Lewis, seems to me like an interesting choice (in spite of his "expertise" for a documentary which discusses the problems with the way in which the media unfairly persuades the public.

The most interesting person, that is interviewed in the film is Joe Klines, an executive producer at Fox News. Klines tries (and seemingly is one of, if not the only person who tries) to argue that the media does a fair job and is reporting all of the important "news." He even goes as far as saying (perhaps jokingly, but I doubt it) that if you don't see something on the news that it might not be news or as important as you think. While I believe Klines, like Lews and Moore, is very biased and persuasive, he seems to be the only person arguing for the "other" side.

While I did enjoy the documentary and understood its message (and even may agree with it) I have a major question after watching it. Is this film, which works so hard to expose the bias of the media and the unjust service that the media does, guilty of the same injustice to its viewers with its biased attempts to influence the viewer?

I think yes...

Final exam question

What is the problem with the media today and how can it be fixed?
In answering, you must bring specific examples of your diagnosis from the 2008 Presidential campaign and support your statements with as many of the readings from the semester as possible.

Note: The bulk of your response should be focused on the diagnosis and not on the solution.

What do you all think? This is very basic and I hope it can be built on.

Gershkoff, Kushner and Obama

As the Professor has pointed out, Barack Obama in his campaign developed and shaped his narrative consistently throughout the campaign.

Although President-elect Obama was an amazing marketer, the media helped his cause and played an important role in this election I am not proposing a conspiracy where the media was biased and did what it could to help Obama get elected, I am arguing that Obama used the media (which acted as it usually does and I believe Obama's campaign staff knew this) to his advantage.

Although Hochschild (summarizing Jacobs and Shapiro) states that "this whole elaborate strategy of crafting the message seems not to work," I believe that this is only true in strategies involving policy reform (like Clinton's health care plan). On the other hand, when a candidate like Barack Obama is able to form an push a strong and persuasive narrative to the American public, it seems to be a successful campaign strategy. Furthermore, Shapiro states that

"The media do...amplify and distort partisan disputes and increasingly report on political stratagems rather than substantive policy proposals."

If this is true, then the media certainly was able to help Obama in his campaign against the much less interesting and sellable John McCain. Seeing as the media focuses on story lines and "political stratagems" then Barack Obama was certainly able to capitalize on his strong personality and outgoing appeal to the American public, using the media as his tool and method to get to the American people (knowing that they would carry his narrative and story because of its appeal).

Furthermore, we know that statistically speaking Obama got more media exposure then McCain (I know this is an old and limited state, but I tried to find what I could) and we know from Behr and Iyengar that the amount and matter in which an issue is found in the media greatly effects its importance and the public's responses and beliefs about and issue. In addition, we know thatMcCain got more negative coverage than Obama, which might have persuaded the people who saw this coverage to vote for Obama instead of Mccain.

Lastly, as stated above, Obama was able to carry a strong narrative, and convince the public that he not only had the better agenda, but was also able to carry out his plans for the United States. This clearly echoes (although in a different context) the words of Gershkoff and Kushner who argue that the statements made by politicians (and especially those highlighted by the media) with great repetition will stick to the American people and impact their opinions and choices of who and what to support.

Could've, Should've, Would've

I was reading over many of the polls posted on The Roper Center's website, and found a few things quite surprising.

I looked mostly at the polls in "The Presidency" section and noticed that most, if not all, of the polls were conducted by telephone. This is interesting to note because, as Gawiser and Witt point out in "20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results," some people either don't have phones, refuse to answer or weren't home at the time that the call was made. This can skew results in 2 main ways: First, this automatically eliminates from the poll anyone who can't afford a home telephone (or who chooses not to have one and just have a cell phone), and, as we've discussed in class, these people usually come from the lower income brackets and are most of the time Democratic voters (which will be important a little further down in this post).

I want to focus specifically on the following question and its data for a little bit of analysis:

National Security Survey [September, 2006]
(Now I'd like to read some proposals President (George W.) Bush and the Republicans in congress may offer to improve anti-terrorism efforts. Please tell me if you support or oppose each proposal.)...The following is a statement a Republican candidate could say in support of this proposal. Democrats think this is a law-enforcement exercise where you have to go to a judge to get approval. The Republicans understand that we are at war with terrorists and sometimes a court order takes too long. The President needs new powers to fight that war. Does this make you much more favorable, somewhat more favorable, somewhat less favorable, or much less favorable to a Republican candidate?

Much more favorable 27
Somewhat more favorable 24
Somewhat less favorable 14
Much less favorable 26
Don't know 9

Source: Survey by Third Way.
Methodology: Conducted by Benenson Strategy Group, September 13- September 14, 2006 and based on telephone interviews with a national likely voters sample of 600. Likely voters are registered voters who said they are absolutely certain/very likely to vote in the 2006 election.
Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

There are a few points (and critiques) I would like to raise about this poll:
1) This poll was conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group, which boasts on its website about having "Presidential candidate Barack Obama, Governors, U.S. Senators, Congressmen, international labor unions, Fortune 100 companies and major non-profits" as clients. I find this interesting for many reasons, one of them being that this company has a wide variety of clientele ranging (presumably) across the entire political spectrum. This is also interesting because in this poll we see that they chose to do the polling by phone, and eliminate a very large, and arguably important, demographic of people who may not own phones (see above)

2) Although I think that the question was asked to the right group of people ("Likely voters are registered voters who said they are absolutely certain/very likely to vote in the 2006 election"), the size of the voting sample is relatively small. Although there is no "confidence level" listed, if we assume that it is 95%, then a 600 person sample size yields a 4 point margin of error (according to "Best Estimates") and while this is not a large number, a smaller number, around 2-3% is preferable.

3) The wording of the question is what I find most fascinating. Part of the question reads "The following is a statement a Republican candidate could say in support of this proposal." The pollster is trying to be politically, and morally, correct by saying the word COULD, but this word is clearly being swallowed by the rest of the question. (Read the question out loud starting from "Now," which I also think is an interesting and friendly word to use, and I think you will get my point) The pollster is trying to convince the person on the other end of the telephone line that this IS what Republicans will say and therefore they should answer accordingly.

4) I think that the results are very interesting, but not surprising at all knowing what we know about home telephones and about people who tend to answer polling questions. I would like to point out that 51% percent of the people answered were at least "somewhat more favorable" of something that was being stated by a potential Republican member of Congress and was in support of a Republican President.

5) The timing, September 13-14 2006, is fascinating as well. According to the USA Today on September 19th 2006, "President Bush's approval rating has risen to 44% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. That's his highest rating in a year." Furthermore, the article goes on to say that "The new poll found likely voters more prone to vote for candidates who support Bush on terrorism, 45%-28%, and evenly divided on those who support and oppose Bush on Iraq. More than a quarter said Iraq is their top concern this fall. For the first time since December 2005, a majority of people did not say the war there was a mistake; the split was 49%-49%." Although we would assume that at a time somewhere in late 2006 the President's approval ratings would have been much lower, this is not true and we must take into account what Gawiser and Witt point out (question 8):

"Events have a dramatic impact on poll results. Your interpretation of a poll should depend on when it was conducted relative to key events. Even the freshest poll results can be overtaken by subsequent events. The President may have given a stirring speech to the nation, the stock market may have crashed or an oil tanker may have sunk, spilling millions of gallons of crude on beautiful beaches."

READINGS FOR 11/19 NEW LINKS

I was having problems with 2 of the links of the syllabus, I found the three readings myself through searching, I am putting the links up here:

“Best Estimates”

“20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results”

Tom Engelhardt on Michael Schwartz, “The Opiate of the Electorate”

The "first mother in law"

Although I must say that I do love getting the insider information about Barack Obama's personal life and his family, I think that the overwhelming amount of attention that Marian Robinson, Michelle Obama's mother, is a little too much.

I am not saying that I don't enjoy little segments about Mrs. Robinson's role in the Obama campaign (see the clip below), but I do think that the public debate over whether or not she should live in the White House or how much she dislikes some of the Obama's house rules are a little over the top.


At this point in our history, I think that the media should focus on the real issues at hand, like the 2 wars we are fighting and the terrible economic situation that plagues our nation.

In addition, it will not be the first time that a President's mother in law will live in, or spend an extended amount of time in, the White House (See Harry Truman, who is also ranked among our top Presidents-not saying that the two are necessarily linked, but it is nevertheless still a good point). Furthermore, I think that whatever will help the President to do his job better and put more focus on us, the American people, instead of on his family and personal life is definitely welcome and a good thing.

[P.S. My vote for second least newsworthy story goes to the Obama girls bedroom choices in the White House and their offer to be on the Hannah Montana show)

News, "showmanship," and the mafia

Earlier in the semester we discussed the impact that news executives have on the news and the method of reporting that takes place on their networks (see "Outfoxed" debate), and "Network" makes this point even clearer.

The movie shows the inside workings of the fictional network, UBS. It shows the "top-down" nature of news organizations, and the decision making process over what qualifies as "news" and what will get the highest ratings.

In the beginning of film, executives are upset with the actions of Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch) because he uses vulgar language and says the things that people don't want to hear. However, after seeing a great rise in ratings the executives decide to keep Beale on the air and ride his ratings to the top. With a few bumps in the road, and a lame love story to go with them, the movie takes the viewer through the Beale's roller coaster ride that ends in Arther Jensen (played by Ned Beatty), the chief executive of UBS's parent company, using Beale's popularity to spread his message. This new message leads to a drop in ratings and the battle between Jensen and other executives that leads to Beale's assassination.

While I don't know how accurate the film is, it does bring to the forefront many issues with the modern media. The most important issue raised by the film is the fact that newscasters are handcuffed by, among others (which will be discussed later), their executives and their ratings. As Diana Christensen (played by Faye Dunaway), the network's entertainment executive, states explicitly:

"But TV is also show biz...and even the news has to have a little bit of showmanship"

It seems obvious to me that this statement should raise great concern from those who hear it. The sad fact is that those who are supposed to be spreading the news, the facts about what is going on in the world, to the world are just as (if not more) concerned with their ratings and "showmanship" as they are with reporting the facts are they should.

Another group that handcuffs newscasters and reporters is pointed out by Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston, and that is the government. Through many detailed examples and first hand accounts, Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston prove that government, and specifically the Bush administration, believe that "perceptions of reality are malleable," and that

"the safest place for the elite press to be is in the 'nonideological' space found in an implicit understanding of news as whatever the most powerful officials say it is."

I believe that this, the interference by and intimidation used by the government, is a very dangerous concern, one that trumps that of the executive. On the one hand, each administration will have a different outlook on the media and use different outlets to its advantage, and the executive is always concerned with only making the greatest profit. On the other hand, the government, and especially the executive branch, which "executes the law," uses its power and influence to indirectly take away the freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is up to those who hold the most power, US, the public, to support the media and demand the honest reporting of the facts. If we can show the government that we will not tolerate their actions, and show the executives that we support the broadcasters who report the true (and not necessarily the most interesting) facts, then we can do our part in insuring that the "fourth branch of government" is able to execute its role and check faithfully check the other (more official) branches of our federal government.

My Wonderful Morning

In light of a recent article from the New York Times about this morning's turnout and early morning waiting, I decided to share some pictures (which i took on my Blackberry so sorry for the bad quality) and my experience from this morning:

I woke up at 5:30 and arrived at the Robert F. Kennedy school this morning at approximately 6:15am.

I was first put on a line in order to enter the room (this took under 5 minutes so I thought I was in good shape)


We then entered the large elementary school gym which looked more like a mosh pit. Lines were weaving in and out of each other and people were walking through traffic from end to end without any real direction.


I waited on the line for around an hour until finally arriving at the booth to vote (I later found out that the reason that our line took so much longer then everyone else's was because it was not only the longest, but the woman at the front who was checking our ID's forgot her glasses and couldn't read anything. Interestingly her tag said that she was a "Republican Volunteer" [Hm...is this a potential conspiracy, seeing as we said in class that longer waits could possibly hurt the Democrats more then the Republicans?]

After finally voting and making my way out of the gym, it was 7:50am.

Hey it could've been worse I guess, at least we have the amazing (and rare) right to vote for those who lead us.

Tools for tonight

Here is an interesting article about tonight's coverage from today's New York Times.

Also, here are some hours to watch when polls close courtesy of The New York Times:

When a Lie Becomes the Truth

The story of Street Fight, which tells the story of the 2002 Newark Mayoral Race, is one that I think is both unique to smaller, city-wide elections, but also tells the story of many issues that arise in many campaigns including the Presidential Race of 2008.

On the one hand, Marshall Curry shows the harsh reality of city political machines and their ability to control every aspect of life including elections, the symbol of our democratic system.

On the other hand, it shows the power of strong political skills and the ability to turn a blatant lie into a truth. The best example from this election is the "Obama is an Arab" claim. Although this claim has been refuted by John McCain himself, we have discussed in class that many Americans will still go into the voting booth and choose not to vote for Barack Obama because they THINK that he may be a Muslim.

In the film, Sharpe James is able to convince many of the citizens of Newark that Cory Booker is not only "not black," but also that his campaign has raised almost 5 times the amount that it actually did (He repeatedly says that Booker has raised 10 million dollars when in reality he raised close to 2), and uses this to persuade voters against voting for Booker.

Although, in the end, after 4 years of fighting Booker does become the mayor of Newark, the film shows that harsh realities of the political world on both a small and large scale.

I recommend the film to all those who haven't watched it, it is truly worth your time.

Furthermore, this election could mean big things for Cory Booker, with ongoing speculation that he will get a job in Washington should Barack Obama win on Tuesday.

REPOST: McCain Catching up?

In light of an article from today's New York Times, which states:

"On the last Sunday before the election, the presidential candidates and their running mates kept up a relentless pace by visiting states their respective parties had lost in 2004."

I would like to restate (and clarify) the point I made in a recent post.

I was trying to make the claim that Steven made in his comment, and that is that John McCain seems to be showing his lack of confidence by pouring more money into states which President Bush won in 2004.

In light of the statement from the NYT that BOTH candidates "visited states their respective parties had lost in 2004" I would like to restate my point, especially in light of the professor's recent post.

Although it doesn't change the fact that all the states that were being visited on Sunday were lost by the respective candidates who visited them, it is important to note WHICH states they visited. Both of the candidates visited states which Nate Silver indicated would win them the election (Obama in Ohio and McCain in Pennsylvania). This indicates that both of them see the value in visiting specific states and are trying to win what was lost in 2004.

However, non of this changes the fact that John McCain is pouring more money into states that President Bush WON in 2004. When I first saw this, I was shocked and it showed a sort of "back-peddling" by the McCain campaign, and what I see as an almost desperate measure in what seems to be a lost campaign.

Although one might disagree with me, when I see someone getting defensive, whether in person or by acting the way the McCain campaign has, it indicates to me a lack of confidence (think for yourself about the last time someone started to argue with you, if you felt confident in your position you were probably on the "offensive," but if you weren't confident in your position you were probably on the "defensive" trying to make excuses for your statements or actions and "back-peddling")