The Lion's Den

My "farewell address" [#2] (I always wanted one of these)-COMPLETED Version

2008-12-31T22:40:00.036-05:00

So as you all saw I got stuck in the middle of posting the completed version of my final due to the amazing YU internet. I decided that since I am looking forward to reading all of yours, that I would complete my final in a new post. Enjoy.

My fellow Americans, when examining the media’s role in understanding American politics, I think we must first understand what the media’s role should be as it relates to politics, what it actually is, the problems with its current state, the way in which the current state and its problems manifested themselves during the 2008 Presidential election, and lastly how to bridge what "is" and what "should be".

First we must examine what the media “should be” as it relates to politics [I think the best approach to this issues is a diachronic one, beginning with the founding of our nation and continuing until the current era]-

The logical place to start is with one of our “founding fathers”, for an “insider’s” approach to the issue.

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Edward Carrington stated that the people are the only censors of government and the only way for them to do their job properly is:

“to give them full information of the affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.”

In other words, Jefferson states that the media is essential to the understanding of politics because it is the only way to get full information to the people.

Helen Thomas, the great member of the White House Press Corps, takes the “ownership” of information one step further:

“All Presidents think that most information belongs to them, to their domain, and I think it belongs to the people.”

But if the information belongs to the people, and is not only theirs in order to do their “job properly,” how do they get that information?

The answer is rather simple and is given by James Fishkin, who explains that the media serves as an essential link between the people and their government officials. He describes how on the one hand the media, through polling, informs the government of the wants of the public, but more importantly, on the other hand, the media (should) ensure that the people are informed of the response that the government has to their wants and needs. In other words, the media (should) provide the public with the information from the government that is “rightfully theirs.”

Furthermore, media outlets were given this responsibility by the FCC in the second part of the “Fairness Doctrine” (as paraphrased by the MBC):

“The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.”

The Jeffersonian notion that the American people are “the only censors of government” is one which not only Jefferson, but many others, believe is unachievable without the help of the media. Most recently we see this responsibility of the media spoken about by Kovach and Rosensteil (the media “must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise”) and John Stewart (in his harsh criticism of “Crossfire,” which the Professor associated here).

The “Jeffersonian” model of the media/politics relationship is one that:
a) Gives the public all of the information about the goings-on of the government (which “belongs” to the people anyway) in a well circulated manner (Leighley’s (in "Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective") “Reporters of Objective Fact), and
b) Affords the public the opportunity, through the media, to criticize and “censor” the government (Part of Leighley’s “Neutral Adversary,” also see Thomas’ discussion/comments on Press Conferences, and Clayman, Heritage, et al.).

Continuing on our thematic and diachronic journey, I want to turn to an “outsider’s” perspective which highlights another part of the American media/politics relationship.

Alexis de Tocqueville goes as far as saying that:

“The laws of the country (America) thus compel every American to co-operate every day of his life…for a common purpose.”

de Toqueville’s belief is that we need newspapers (and I would add other parts of “old” and “new” media) in order to successfully unite as a group, as a nation, and perform our civic duties.

Or, as Thomas states:

“you cannot have a democracy without an informed people.”

Furthermore, de Toqueville points out that:

“Nothing but a newspaper (and I would add to this again other forms of “old” and “new” media) can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment.”

I think Dana Richard Villa (in “Public Freedom”) best summarized the “de Toquevillian” ideal of the American media/politics relationship. From an outsiders view she notes that de Toqueville saw:

“through the exploitation of freedom of association and of the press, the Americans had created a decentered public sphere: one not dominated by a particular party or city; one free of central government control and-potentially, at least-the dictates of majority opinion.”

[In some ways Leighley’s “Public Advocate”]

The last part of what the media/politics relationship “should be” is an unbiased one.
This is clearly spelled out in the "Fairness Doctrine" (Again paraphrased by the MBC):

“The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were ‘public trustees,’ and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.”

[More of Leighley’s “Public Advocate”]

[For a great bridge between these 2 segments see Convention Conversations with Journalists-I would’ve embedded the video but its about and hour long-although some of these and different views will be discussed below]

Next, we must examine what the relationship between the media and politics is in the United States today (again the “problems with today’s state of the media will be discusses later on)-

This relationship is summed up best by the great University of Illinois at Chicago professor Doris Graber who said:

“Media do more than depict the political environment, they are the political environment.”

Assuming that Graber is correct, we must now describe what today’s political environment is.

One important aspect of the current “state of the media” is the government’s ability to use the media as a “tool” for their agenda.

This complex element of the media/politics relationship is explained in detail by Leighly (specifically in chapter 1, 2 and 7) and many of these points highlighted in the works of other political scientists.

These scholars point out that politicians, and specifically the President and political candidates, use the media to accomplish two things:

1) Gain support for their agenda (see the professor’s post here)
2) Shape their narrative

These techniques were used masterfully throughout the last 8 years by the Bush Administration to gain support for their re-election and policies, including the controversial war in Iraq (see Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston, Gerskoff and Kushner, and Cook Jr.).
[Sounds a little like Leighley’s “Propagandist”….albeit not as bad]

Another aspect of this relationship is the causal flow of information, or who causes what to be reported.
There seems to be two possibilities here:

1) The public concern (as expressed in polling etc.) influences what the media reports and how the government reacts (One aspect of Fishkin above), OR
2) The news stations report what they feel is important, or will gain the most profit, and this shapes public concern

The ramifications of this flow are clear, and it seems that the relationship is “unidirectional,” with the media taking its “cues” from the government (see Gershkoff and Kushner) and shaping public concern through what/how they report certain issues (see Behr and Iyengar).

A third part of this relationship is the “for profit” nature of the media industry, or Leighley’s “Profit Seeker” which seems to be the overarching “model” at play in today’s media society.
This understanding, that large amounts of money can be made based on what is reported and how it is reported leads to many things including the media outlets setting their own political agendas and influencing how the public sets theirs [again the ramifications of this will be discussed below].

The last element of the current media state is the rise in popularity of the internet (specifically blogs-see Rainie and Harrington, Lenhart and Fox and this Pew Study), “soft-news” programming (like "The Daily Show,” “Colbert Nation,” and late night talk shows), and satirical shows like “South Park” and “The Simpsons.”

While the rise of these new outlets do spread political information to people that weren’t interested in the news (see Baum) and sometimes provide great political critique and comedy (see my post here), they also cause many problems (which again will be discussed below).

[For another great transition between these two points, see the Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media, 2008]

Here’s where all the fun (sigh) starts, the “problems” with the current state of the media as described above (I will attempt to highlight these problems, but detail will be scarce at points because it is not only boring to read, but it’s also very frustrating to be reminded of (sigh again) and I believe has been given its fair share of time throughout our online and offline discussion this semester, and of course by McChesney)

Reality #1- The government, and other elected officials, using the media as a “tool” to govern-

On the surface this seems like a great idea, why shouldn’t the government, and elected officials use the media, which is the easiest way to communicate to the masses, to convey their message and ideas to the public?

I agree, this seems like a great idea, but we must not be so naïve, the government doesn’t use these tools to CONVEY their messages, the use it to CONVINCE the public that their ideas and policies should be supported, and use many deceiving tactics to accomplish this.

This of course is the theme of “Unspun,” by Jackson and Jamieson and I would like to highlight to important parts of that work to explain this point:

First, Jackson and Jamieson (J&J for short) go into great detail describing what they (and I think accurately) are the warning signs and tricks (as well as lessons and rules to deal with these) used by those who want to “spin” their stories through the media. Of course, there are no shortage of examples of these tactics, especially from government officials and political candidates, but I think the professor does a great job at illustrating these [in addition I will show some specific examples of this from the 2008 campaign later on].

Second, J&J insightfully note that “deception is a bipartisan enterprise,” and show that this was clearly the case in the Bush/Kerry 2004 race (See Cook Jr., Bennet, Lawrence and Livington, and the brilliant PR work of Secretary Baker from the “recount” as described by Spencer and shown in “Recount” and spelled out by McCormack).

Stewart on “Crossfire” depicts the world filled with bias that we inhabit best. He says we, and specifically reporters, live and hang out on “Spin alley” and “Perception Lane” need I say more…

Of course there is also no shortage of information (which is also brought by J&J) from the current administration and their ability to spin their facts in order to gain support for their 2003 invasion of Iraq. (In fact during this period of time the term “fear, uncertainty and doubt” were so closely related with the administration that they were even given their own acronym of “FUD”!!)
[For more information on this specific issue see Gershkoff and Kushner]

In addition, government officials have been able to successfully (somewhat) “rewrite” the actual “facts” (See “1984” and my post-although this is clearly and exaggeration, and my post here which is no exaggeration at all) and distract the public from scandals and other issues using the media (See “Wag the Dog” and my post).

While the above posts contribute a great deal to this discussion, the most telling of these films/posts with regard to this issue is “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and the following quote which I highlight and discuss at length here:

Paine: He (Smith) can raise public opinion against us - if any part of this sticks...
Taylor: Aah, he'll never get started. I'll make public opinion out there within five hours! I've done it all my life. I'll blacken this punk so that he'll - You leave public opinion to me. Now, Joe, I think you'd better go back into the Senate and keep those Senators lined up.

The problem with this abuse (although it should be the responsibility of the media outlets and journalists to prevent this, and when they don’t they abandon one of the “posts” [see Boehlert], and they have clearly "failed" in the past [see Hochschild on Jacobs and Shapiro]) is that America is not a dictatorship and as Helen Thomas noted (above) in order to be a successful democracy we must be informed. And I would add, we cannot be a successful and healthy democracy if that information is deceptive and unfactual. This current reality prevents our nation from operating in the way that our “laws” (de Toqueville) dictate and that fulfills our true responsibilities to ourselves and our nation (Jefferson).

Reality #2- The one way causal flow of information-media officials and government decide what is reported and what weight it is given.

This reality goes directly against Kovach and Rosensteil’s 4th “task” of the media:

“Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover”

“It’s a tragedy to have one-newspaper towns with no competition, and having the media broadcast outlets think that entertainment is more important than the issues.”

The fact that this reality exists I think is pretty clear, and, furthermore, there is no shortage of data to support that the media has moved away from reporting the “real news” and our commentators (or dare I say “experts”) are now entertainers (see “A Face in the Crowd” and my post), and even given great nicknames like “America’s Boyfriend” (I had to throw that in).

In addition, we know that this reality extends to individual journalists (and some of the more “trustworthy” of famous ones, Judith Miller [cough cough]-see Massing and Massing responses), and this may be more disturbing. If we cannot trust the executives of media outlets, or the individual reporters because they just want to get “front-page” material, then where do we turn? How can we possibly function as a democratic society when even the journalists cannot fulfill their responsibility (or at least what Helen Thomas defines it as) to the public?

Reality #4- The new idea of what passes for “news” and political commentary

While it has become evident throughout the semester, both in the classroom and online (see here among others), that I am happy about the rise of political discourse in new and informal ways, and there is evidence to say that these more “entertaining” forums do succeed in educating those who would otherwise go uneducated (see Baum, Annenberg Election Survey, and Peterson), this reality comes with many consequences (I will keep the detail brief here again because I think much of this is self-explanatory and needs little clarification)

1) Although political information is vast, and more people are “informed” then ever before, this doesn’t necessarily lead to “correct voting,” aka voting for the candidate who would best suit the needs and wants of the voter (Lau, Anderson and Redlawsk).

2) Although there is more political news and discussion in the media, and specifically on television, there are also more alternatives and therefore there isn’t more political knowledge and voter turnout (Prior).

3) Although more people are watching political discourse on television and gaining their political knowledge from it, this leads to a false sense of political activity which hurts the larger political environment (Hart). Similarly, while more people are engaging in political discourse online and gaining information from it, which doesn’t necessarily lead to and increase in political activism (Reeher).

4) The “incivility” of political discourse as it is portrayed on TV leads to greater interest, but causes less trust in government (Mutz and Reeves) and the way in which this “incivility” and discourse is portrayed leads “audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise” (Mutz).

5) Although blogging is viewed as a form of journalism (and even a successful tool in the classroom) and a large amount of political discourse takes place through this up and coming medium (Lemann, Lenhart and Fox, and Kerbel and Bloom), “everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist today. They don’t have any professionalism, they don’t have any standards, and we have been infiltrated by that” (Thomas).

So how exactly did these realities manifest themselves in the election of 2008? I’m glad you asked…

Reality #1- Using the media to set a narrative and convey an agenda

Where do I begin?

We know from all of our discussions, mostly online, that candidates use the media to portray their agenda and narratives in both “positive” and “negative” (Or “attack”) ads. While there is not shortage of proof from the 2008 campaign, I am only going to highlight a few of them.

I think that the most obvious case of setting a narrative, was Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" and "Change" narrative which was fleshed out by the professor in a post shown here:

Which I (to summarize my analysis from here) believe was strongly aided by the amount of coverage that Obama, and his narrative, were given [which statistically was more then McCain’s] and is supported by the following Pew Statistics:

And whose findings were perceived by Americans:

I would also like to note that it is clear that the Obama campaign’s strategy was much better then McCain’s, because when he tried to convey his narrative through the following ads and failed using the same media outlets as Obama:

Obama "praises McCain"...

...and says he's right

Of course Obama will raise taxes..

and again...

And how could I forget "Joe the Plumber"...not once...

...but twice

Interestingly enough, Obama’s narrative was so successful that it was even used as the basis for a recent Chabad ad for Chanukah:

Reality #2- The media decides what to report and the weight that each issue should be given. They therefore decide what issues the public is most concerned about.

While there is a lot of data which discusses the amount of attention that certain issues got during the election, there has not been much released (yet) regarding how this exposure led to public concern. However, it is important to realize that campaign seasons are always all about issues (whether they be big or small) and during the 2008 campaign election coverage did dominate the headlines and news broadcasts for the majority of the time. I would argue (and I believe future research will prove) that this expose was one of the main causes that led to the record-setting voter turnout numbers that occurred during the 2008 presidential election.

Reality #3- Media outlets are becoming increasingly proft-seeking

Record setting? 2008 was more like record shattering in terms of the amount of money spent by each of the presidential campaign on advertising.
I think these numbers speak for themselves:

Obama- Broadcast Media $308,964,991
Print Media $15,355,720
Internet Media $14,037,426
Miscellaneous Media $1,237,317
Media Consultants $214,001

McCain- Media Broadcast Media $63,491,897
Miscellaneous Media $50,059,497
Internet Media $4,654,183
Media Consultants $625,741
Print Media $5,117

Reality #4- “New Media” coverage is on the rise (for better or worse)

Before discussing this topic I want to highlight one particular moment from one of the televised debates whose ramifications turned out to be large over throughout the rest of the campaign:

This one “sound bite” negatively effected McCain’s campaign (as I discussed here), and his overall appearance as “old” was clearly highlighted when he stood next to the “young” and seemingly unflappable Obama. This visual appeal is one of the reasons why television and other video sources play a large roll in Presidential campaigns and will continue to even in the new era of the internet.

Here are some of the statistics for where Americans got there campaign news from throughout the election:

The internet is clearly above the rest of the outlets, and is on the rise as noted by (Rainie and Horrigan), and some would argue that Obama was “Propelled by Internet” to victory.

In addition to the internet, “Soft-news” was at an all-time high during the campaign and election. Here are some of my favorite highlights:

And my favorite highlight clips [sorry embeding was disabled]

And of course, my dad on “Indecision 2008” (the clip is nowhere to found since Comedy Central put a duplicate of another segments under this segment’s title).

Last but not least….What do we do about this sad state of the media?

I think the answer is short and sweet and best articulated by McChesney:

“Democracy needs journalism; viable self-government in our times is unthinkable without it. But journalism also requires democracy. Unless the citizenry depends upon journalism and takes it seriously, reporters can lose incentive for completing the hard work that generates excellent journalism. The political system then becomes less responsive and corruption grows.”

So I guess the real question is how do we get the citizenry to continually depend on journalism and take it seriously…

This answer is not a simple one, but the issue is still very important. In spite of the fact that the President-elect is seeking more direct contact with the public (my post), and is even seeking the public’s opinion on setting his agenda, we still need the media as a check and an alternative source to the White House itself.
As de Toqueville observed:

“The power of the newspaper press must therefore increase as the social conditions of men become more equal”

And I don’t think we’ve ever seen a more equal time for news accessibility then at the current moment.

However, there is still work to be done, as Jefferson stated:

“But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them”

In this modern age of the internet, we must ensure not only that all of our citizens can read, but that they have access, in some way shape or form, to the internet and its news.

We must also stop feeding the media exorbitant amounts of money which encourages them to continue to show the "clowns" that are now all over our televisions (see Kaplan [in "What Orwell Didn't Know" for this direct correlation). If we are able to influence WHAT is covered by the media as “news,” then we will be well on our way to a better and more ideal society.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, to echo the words (yet again) of Helen Thomas:

“I think that press conferences are extremely important, and this president holds the fewest. But it’s the reporters’ fault because they don’t clamor. Something has happened to the press.”

We must pressure our journalists to force elected officials to hold more press conferences and answer the tough questions. And if theseofficials continue to sidestep the issues we must hold them accountable and not let them get away with withholding all of the information from us, the people, to whom it truly belongs.

My "farewell address" (I always wanted one of these)

2008-12-31T21:55:00.014-05:00

My fellow Americans, when examining the media’s role in understanding American politics, I think we must first understand what the media’s role should be as it relates to politics, what it actually is, the problems with its current state, the way in which the current state and its problems manifested themselves during the 2008 Presidential election, and lastly how to bridge what "is" and what "should be".

First we must examine what the media “should be” as it relates to politics [I think the best approach to this issues is a diachronic one, beginning with the founding of our nation and continuing until the current era]-

The logical place to start is with one of our “founding fathers”, for an “insider’s” approach to the issue.

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Edward Carrington stated that the people are the only censors of government and the only way for them to do their job properly is:

“to give them full information of the affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.”

“All Presidents think that most information belongs to them, to their domain, and I think it belongs to the people.”

“The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.”

“The laws of the country (America) thus compel every American to co-operate every day of his life…for a common purpose.”

“you cannot have a democracy without an informed people.”

Furthermore, de Toqueville points out that:

“Nothing but a newspaper (and I would add to this again other forms of “old” and “new” media) can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment.”

“through the exploitation of freedom of association and of the press, the Americans had created a decentered public sphere: one not dominated by a particular party or city; one free of central government control and-potentially, at least-the dictates of majority opinion.”

“The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were ‘public trustees,’ and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.”

“Media do more than depict the political environment, they are the political environment.”

Assuming that Graber is correct, we must now describe what today’s political environment is.

One important aspect of the current “state of the media” is the government’s ability to use the media as a “tool” for their agenda.

This complex element of the media/politics relationship is explained in detail by Leighly (specifically in chapter 1, 2 and 7) and many of these points highlighted in the works of other political scientists.

These scholars point out that politicians, and specifically the President and political candidates, use the media to accomplish two things:

1) Gain support for their agenda (see the professor’s post here)
2) Shape their narrative

These techniques were used masterfully throughout the last 8 years by the Bush Administration to gain support for their re-election and policies, including the controversial war in Iraq (see Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston, Gerskoff and Kushner, and Cook Jr.).
[Sounds a little like Leighley’s “Propagandist”….albeit not as bad]

Another aspect of this relationship is the causal flow of information, or who causes what to be reported. There seems to be two possibilities here:

1) The public concern (as expressed in polling etc.) influences what the media reports and how the government reacts (One aspect of Fishkin above), OR
2) The news stations report what they feel is important, or will gain the most profit, and this shapes public concern

The ramifications of this flow are clear, and it seems that the relationship is “unidirectional,” with the media taking its “cues” from the government (see Gershkoff and Kushner) and shaping public concern through what/how they report certain issues (see Behr and Iyengar).

A third part of this relationship is the “for profit” nature of the media industry, or Leighley’s “Profit Seeker” which seems to be the overarching “model” at play in today’s media society. This understanding, that large amounts of money can be made based on what is reported and how it is reported leads to many things including the media outlets setting their own political agendas and influencing how the public sets theirs [again the ramifications of this will be discussed below].

The last element of the current media state is the rise in popularity of the internet (specifically blogs-see Rainie and Harrington, Lenhart and Fox and this Pew Study), “soft-news” programming (like "The Daily Show,” “Colbert Nation,” and late night talk shows), and satirical shows like “South Park” and “The Simpsons.”

While the rise of these new outlets do spread political information to people that weren’t interested in the news (see Baum) and sometimes provide great political critique and comedy (see my post here), they also cause many problems (which again will be discussed below).

[For another great transition between these two points, see the Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media, 2008]

Here’s where all the fun (sigh) starts, the “problems” with the current state of the media as described above (I will attempt to highlight these problems, but detail will be scarce at points because it is not only boring to read, but it’s also very frustrating to be reminded of (sigh again) and I believe has been given its fair share of time throughout our online and offline discussion this semester, and of course by McChesney)

Reality #1- The government, and other elected officials, using the media as a “tool” to govern-

On the surface this seems like a great idea, why shouldn’t the government, and elected officials use the media, which is the easiest way to communicate to the masses, to convey their message and ideas to the public?

I agree, this seems like a great idea, but we must not be so naïve, the government doesn’t use these tools to CONVEY their messages, the use it to CONVINCE the public that their ideas and policies should be supported, and use many deceiving tactics to accomplish this.

This of course is the theme of “Unspun,” by Jackson and Jamieson and I would like to highlight to important parts of that work to explain this point:

First, Jackson and Jamieson (J&J for short) go into great detail describing what they (and I think accurately) are the warning signs and tricks (as well as lessons and rules to deal with these) used by those who want to “spin” their stories through the media. Of course, there are no shortage of examples of these tactics, especially from government officials and political candidates, but I think the professor does a great job at illustrating these [in addition I will show some specific examples of this from the 2008 campaign later on].

Second, J&J insightfully note that “deception is a bipartisan enterprise,” and show that this was clearly the case in the Bush/Kerry 2004 race (See Cook Jr., Bennet, Lawrence and Livington, and the brilliant PR work of Secretary Baker from the “recount” as described by Spencer and shown in “Recount” and spelled out by McCormack).

Stewart on “Crossfire” depicts the world filled with bias that we inhabit best. He says we, and specifically reporters, live and hang out on “Spin alley” and “Perception Lane” need I say more…

Of course there is also no shortage of information (which is also brought by J&J) from the current administration and their ability to spin their facts in order to gain support for their 2003 invasion of Iraq. (In fact during this period of time the term “fear, uncertainty and doubt” were so closely related with the administration that they were even given their own acronym of “FUD”!!)
[For more information on this specific issue see Gershkoff and Kushner]

In addition, government officials have been able to successfully (somewhat) “rewrite” the actual “facts” (See “1984” and my post-although this is clearly and exaggeration, and my post here which is no exaggeration at all) and distract the public from scandals and other issues using the media (See “Wag the Dog” and my post).

While the above posts contribute a great deal to this discussion, the most telling of these films/posts with regard to this issue is “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and the following quote which I highlight and discuss at length here:

Paine: He (Smith) can raise public opinion against us - if any part of this sticks...
Taylor: Aah, he'll never get started. I'll make public opinion out there within five hours! I've done it all my life. I'll blacken this punk so that he'll - You leave public opinion to me. Now, Joe, I think you'd better go back into the Senate and keep those Senators lined up.

“Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover”

The first problem with this reality is that the media is able to set their own, or the government’s, agenda by what and how they report (see Page). Behr and Iyengar discuss this at length, but a few highlights of the findings include:
1) Public concern for certain issues is directly related to the amount and kind of coverage each issue receives
2) “Lead stories” are more powerful and influential than “ordinary stories.”
One example of this is depicted in “Wag the Dog,” and of course its “parallel” from reality with regard to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal (discussed at length here).

In addition, if the causal role is only one-way then “Fishkin’s Ideal” (as described above) is impossible for more then one reason.
First, The politicians not only never receive the wants and needs of the public, but the media, who need to maintain a good relationship with the White House in order to get insider information and breaking news stories, will never (or rarely) report against the President and take the side of the people. This clearly is a failure on the media’s part to meet Leighley’s “Neutral Adversary” and “Public Advocate” models and was clearly the case with regard to the Iraq war (as noted above-by Boehlert).
Second, if the media allow the President to manipulate the polling data, which according to Fishkin he/she is supposed to be using to understand the public wants and needs, in order to deceive the public into thinking that they are actually doing what the public wants, as has been the case with President Bush (see Green) then they have also failed at achieving this ideal.

Moreover, and in my opinion much worse, when the media uses polling data to support their cause (usually making money) they are doing an even bigger disservice to the public because this effects, among other issues, voter turnout and voting (See Schwartz/ Engelhardt on Schwarz, and Hardy and Jamieson).

Lastly, it is clear that certain media outlets and their executives have their own agendas and biases and depict them through their reporting. Of course the classic example of this is Rupert Murdoch and his large organization which includes Fox News, although there are others (link- http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx)

Reality #3- Media outlets (and individual journalists) are making more and more money and therefore becoming even more profit seeking.

I think the problems with this reality are obvious and don’t need much discussion, but I will highlight here 2 very important quotes:

1) Kovach and Rosensteil state that if independent news is replaced by self-interested commercialism “posing as news” then:
“we will lose the press as an independent institution, free to monitor the other powerful forces and institutions in society.”
2) Helen Thomas takes this further and calls the current state, which Kovach and Rosensteil feared, a “tragedy”:
“It’s a tragedy to have one-newspaper towns with no competition, and having the media broadcast outlets think that entertainment is more important than the issues.”

The fact that this reality is actually is one that I think is pretty clear. Furthermore, there is no shortage of data to support that the media has moved away from reporting the “real news” and our commentators (or dare I say “experts”) are now entertainers (see “A Face in the Crowd” and my post-from 12/16), and even given great nicknames like “America’s Boyfriend” (I had to throw that in).

In addition, we know that reality extends to individual journalists (and some of the more “trustworthy” of famous ones, Judith Miller [cough cough]-see Massing), and this may be more disturbing. If we cannot trust the executives of media outlets, or the individual reporters because they just want to get “front-page” material, then where do we turn? How can we possibly function as a democratic society when even the journalists cannot fulfill their responsibility (or at least what Helen Thomas defines it as) to the public?

Reality #4- The new idea of what passes for “news” and political commentary

While it has become evident throughout the semester, both in the classroom and online (see here (southpark) among others), that I am happy about the rise of political discourse in new and informal ways, and there is evidence to say that these more “entertaining” forums do succeed in educating those who would otherwise go uneducated (see Baum, Annenberg Election Survey, and Peterson), this reality comes with many consequences (I will keep the detail brief here again because I think much of this is self-explanatory and needs little clarification)

1) Although political information is vast, and more people are “informed” then ever before, this doesn’t necessarily lead to “correct voting,” aka voting for the candidate who would best suit the needs and wants of the voter (Lau, Anderson and Redlawsk).

2) Although there is more political news and discussion in the media, and specifically on television, there are also more alternatives and therefore there isn’t more political knowledge and voter turnout (Prior).

3) Although more people are watching political discourse on television and gaining their political knowledge from it, this leads to a false sense of political activity which hurts the larger political environment (Hart). Similarly, while more people are engaging in political discourse online and gaining information from it, this doesn’t necessarily lead to and increase in political activism (Reeher).

4) The “incivility” of political discourse as it is portrayed on TV leads to greater interest, it causes less trust in government (Mutz and Reeves) and the way in which this “incivility” along with the way the discourse is portrayed leads “audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise” (Mutz).

5) Although blogging is viewed as a form of journalism (and even a successful tool in the classroom (pimpare article)) and a large amount of political discourse takes place through them (Lemann, Lenhart and Fox, and Kerbel and Bloom), “everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist today. They don’t have any professionalism, they don’t have any standards, and we have been infiltrated by that” (Thomas).

So how exactly did these realties manifest themselves in the election of 2008? I’m glad you asked…

Reality #1- Using the media to set a narrative and convey an agenda

Where do I begin?

We know from all of our discussions, mostly online, that candidates use the media to portray their agenda and narratives in both “positive” and “negative” (Or “attack”) ads. While there is not shortage of proof from the 2008 campaign, I am only going to highlight a few of them.

I think that the most obvious case of setting a narrative was fleshed out by the professor in a post shown here: (show the post and videos).

Which I (to summarize my analysis from here) believed was strongly aided by the amount of coverage that Obama, and his narrative, were given [which statistically was more then McCain’s] and is supported by the following Pew Statistic: (pic)

I would also like to note that it is clear that the Obama campaign’s strategy was much better then McCain’s, because when he tried to convey his narrative through the following ads, he failed to convey his narrative, using the same media outlets as Obama:

Interestingly enough, Obama’s narrative was so successful that it was even used as the basis for a recent Chabad ad for Chanukah (post from 12/16):

Reality #2- The media decides what to report and the weight that each issue should be given. They therefore decide what issues the public is most concerned about.

While there is a lot of data which discusses the amount of attention that certain issues got during the election, there has not been much released (yet) regarding how this exposure led to public concern. However, it is important to realize that campaign seasons are always all about issues (whether they be big or small) and during the 2008 campaign election coverage did dominate the headlines and news broadcasts for the majority of the time. I would argue (and I believe future research will prove) that this expose was one of the main causes that led to the record-setting voter turnout numbers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/2008-seeing-record-voter-_n_85917.html) that occurred during the 2008 presidential election.

Reality #3- Media outlets are becoming increasingly proft-seeking

Record setting? 2008 was more like record shattering in terms of the amount of money spent by each of the presidential campaign on adversiting.
I think these numbers speak for themselves:
Obama- Broadcast Media $308,964,991
Print Media $15,355,720
Internet Media $14,037,426
Miscellaneous Media $1,237,317
Media Consultants $214,001

McCain- Media Broadcast Media $63,491,897
Miscellaneous Media $50,059,497
Internet Media $4,654,183
Media Consultants $625,741
Print Media $5,117

Reality #4- “New Media” coverage is on the rise (for better or worse)

Before discussing this topic I want to highlight one particular moment from one of the televised debates whose ramifications turned out to be large over throughout the rest of the campaign: (Post from 10/28)

This one “sound bite” negatively effected McCain’s campaign (as I discussed here), and his overall appearance as “old” was clearly highlighted when he stood next to the “young” and seemingly unflappable Obama. This visual appeal is one of the reasons why television and other video medians play a large roll in Presidential campaigns and will continue to even in the new era of the internet.

Here are some of the statistics for where Americans got there campaign news from throughout the election:

The internet is clearly above the rest of the outlets, and is on the rise as noted by (Rainie and Horrigan), and some (link to http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/propelled-by-in.html) would argue that Obama was “Propelled by Internet” to victory. Furthermore, we have discussed

In addition to the internet, “Soft-news” was at an all-time high during the campaign and election. Here are some of my favorite highlights:

And of course, my dad on “Indicision 2008” (the clip is nowhere to found since Comedy Central put a duplicate of another segments under this segment’s title).

Last but not least….What do we do about this sad state of the media?

I think the answer is short and sweet and best articulated by McChesney:
“Democracy needs journalism; viable self-government in our times is unthinkable without it. But journalism also requires democracy. Unless the citizenry depends upon journalism and takes it seriously, reporters can lose incentive for completing the hard work that generates excellent journalism. The political system then becomes less responsive and corruption grows.”

So I guess the real question is how do we get the citizenry to continually depend on journalism and take it seriously…

This answer is not a simple one, but the issue is still very important. In spite of the fact that the President-elect is seeking more direct contact with the public (my post), and is even seeking the public’s opinion on setting his agenda (like to change.org), we still need the media as a check and an alternative source to the White House itself. As de Toqueville observed:
“The power of the newspaper press must therefore increase as the social conditions of men become more equal”
And I don’t think we’ve ever seen a more equal time for news accessibility then at the current moment.

However, there is still work to be done, as Jefferson stated:
“But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them”
In this modern age of the internet, we must ensure not only that all of our citizens can read, but that they have access, in some way shape or form, to the internet and its news.

We must also stop feeding the media exorbitant amounts of money so that they continue to produce, and television (see Kaplan for this direct correlation). If we are able to influence WHAT is covered by the media as “news,” then we will be well on our way to a better and more ideal society.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, to echo the words (yet again) of Helen Thomas:
“I think that press conferences are extremely important, and this president holds the fewest. But it’s the reporters’ fault because they don’t clamor. Something has happened to the press.”
We must pressure our journalists to force elected officials to hold more press conferences and answer the tough questions. And if the elected officials continue to sidestep the issues we must hold them accountable and not let them get away with withholding all of the information from us, the people, to whom it truly belongs.

What are you hiding?

2008-12-23T20:50:00.008-05:00

While watching "Wag the Dog" I, apparently among many others, couldn't help but think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and President Clinton's timing in attacking al Qeada in the summer of 1998. More strikingly, I was shocked by the way (in the film) the President's team of expert movie makers is able to actually convince the American public that an actual war was going on.

The similarities between the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the issue being dealt with in the movie are striking. Furthermore, the similarities in the way these issues were handled is. at lack of a better word, scary. In the film, Conrad Brean (played by Robert De Niro) is brought in by the White House staff to try to divert attention from a sex scandal involving the President. Beane hires Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (played by Dustin Hoffman) to literally create a war in the White House basement. [As Brean states "We're not gonna have a war, we're gonna have the appearance of a war."] Motss creates, including pictures and the like, a fictional war with Albania, and with the help of the media the President is able to divert attention away from the scandal and on to the war. They even release a former member of the military who is now a mental patient into the public to spread the "facts" of the "war" and discuss it.

While this is clearly a stretch from the actions taken by President Clinton in the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal, the actions seem all too similar. In August of 1998, as the American public and press were fixated on the White House scandal, President Clinton ordered the attack of al Qeada locations in the Sudan and Afghanistan. The timing seemed striking (although it was justified as a retaliation for the embassy bombings on August 7th) and many reporters (The first being Gaylord Shaw) made the suggestion that this was a "Wag the Dog" attempt to divert the attention away from the scandal and onto the "war" overseas. Shaw even asked Secretary of Defense William Cohen about the possibility of this diversion attempt (actual recording), but Cohen, of course, reaffirmed that the President's attentions were pure and justified. [Furthermore, Cohen was then questioned about the reasoning behind the attacks and the possible "Wag the Dog" attempt.

What I would say is the most striking part of the film is the fact that the American public bought into the "war" and actually believed that it was occurring, solely based on the media's depiction of these events as facts. While we have discussed the power of the media in terms of spreading a narrative (see Cranky Doc's here and Lion's Den here) and even the media's ability to turn a blatant lie into "truth" (here), I never felt that I was effected by this and hoped that the more the American people are exposed to instances like this, the less effective they would be.

But I must admit I was 100% wrong. Even as I have finished a semester in which we have focused on facts, and worked on only making claims to support our statements, and our critical thinking skills have been sharpened and exercised to their maximum, I WAS FOOLED. While watching this short (97 minute) film I actually forgot about the scandal at the beginning of the film due to my extreme focus on the "war" taking place. Now I must reiterate that this seems to be the goal of the film, it still scares me that I, among I assume many others, could be distracted when watching a film highlighting this very issue!

This is a fact which I don't think will go away and that we need to always look out for a focus on. Furthermore, it highlights the responsibility of the media to be truthful and (Leighley's) "reporters of objective fact."

In spite of this scary and eye opening experience, this is still a well made and funny movie. I do recommend it to all of you, but viewer beware...they are out to trick you...

"Tearing human minds apart"

2008-12-20T22:25:00.005-05:00

While watching 1984 (which I must say differs at some points rather strongly from the novel and of course needs to keep in the one thing which makes all movies amazing-A cheesey love story), I couldn't help but imagine what Orwell would think about our modern media and the way in which is operates.

On the one hand, I have seen "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" and commented on its bias and distortion of facts, on the other hand, I do question whether or not Orwell would be that upset (surely he wouldn't be surprised) with the state of our media today.

I think that there are two main points of emphasis in the film:

The first is the very task with which Winston Smith (played by John Hurt) is assigned. His task, as a worker in the Ministry of Truth, is rewrite history in order to benefit "the Party," lead by "Big Brother," who rules Oceania.

On the one hand, the very thought of "rewriting history" is startling and seems somewhat foreign to our lives. On the other , when we consider the power of media bias, as we have done so often throughout the semester (and I discussed here and here among other posts), we might be able to see no difference between the task that Smith is charged with in the film, and the job of modern day media executives and editors. These executives and editors (see "Outfoxed") are often times given orders from the higher powers at the media outlet to create, or bend facts, something which seems only slightly different from the task that Smith is given by "the Party."

The second part of the film that I think need highlighting and discussion is the fact that there is full transparency from everyone, not only in their actions and words, but even in their thoughts. Again, while the idea of a mechanism similar to "telescreens" (two-way TV monitors) and the charges of "thoughtcrimes" is shocking on the surface, would it be so terrible if there was more transparency from our political figures? I understand that my statements may seem way too over the top, but if the media did their job as defined by many, which again we have delved deeply into this semester, then this transparency may be possible.

And I would argue that more transparency on the part of our political figures can only benefit the public. It seems that we wouldn't be as greatly effected by scandals (like Gov. Blagojevich and even Clinton-Lewinsky) and the American public would build more confidence in our political leaders, a confidence that is at an all-time low and negatively effects the strength of our democracy.

Lastly, I would like to highlight what I felt was the most striking and important quote from the entire film. It comes from O'Brien (played by Richard Burton) who is a senior "Party" member:

"Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing."

If O'brien's statement is even remotely accurate, then our media is "stronger" then ever. The real question is if this is a "good" or "bad" thing, and what we can/will do about it....

So when it comes to thinking of how Orwell himself would react to today's media, I think the answer is two-fold. On the one hand, he would be upset (but definitely not shocked) by the fact that the rewriting of history which he tried to warn about in the future would be taking place. On the other hand, I feel that he would be encouraged by some forms of the "new media," like blogs which bring more transparency (obviously not to the negative level that he portrays it effecting Winston) to our political figures and may have been able to take down the "Party" like it has succeeded in doing (or at least) helping already (see Dan Rather).

Note: While I was searching for information on the Dan Rather story I came across an amazing quote which I think brings this whole thing full circle in a VERY ironic way:

"If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. 'Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather,' says a senior Administration official. 'It was like something out of 1984.'"

ChanukObama- A MUST SEE

2008-12-16T23:45:00.002-05:00

Obama's narrative has made its way all the way to Chabad:

May the force be with you

2008-12-16T20:54:00.015-05:00

Watching "A Face in the Crowd" was not only very entertaining, but brought the forefront many issues which we have discussed throughout the semester.

The first thing that I would like to highlight is the important role that the media plays in shaping a candidate's narrative (which I discussed here and here) and in making the candidate more accessible and "likeable." Although the film was made 51 years ago, the members of Senator Worthington Fuller's (played by Marshall Neilan) presidential campaign understood that the media, and specifically a strong and likeable television host like Larry Rhodes (Played by Andy Griffith), could help shape the senator's image and highly impact his election results. Fuller's advisers bring Rhodes to one of their gatherings and ask for his opinion on how he can help the senator's campaign:
As many have already pointed out (see the youtube title for this clip), this seems to be exactly what the Obama campaign tried, and succeed at doing. They were able to shape a narrative around Obama (see the professor's post) and use the media to gain exposure and likeability for then Senator Obama.

Later in the film, Rhodes brings Senator Fuller on to his show, and uses his popularity to gain exposure for the senator. In addition, since we know that Rhodes has been consulting for the Fuller campaign, we see that he asks questions about the real issues involved in the election, but does so in a way to make the senator still seem appealing and likeable.

Next, I would like to discuss how Rhodes, and of course Marcia Jeffries (played by Patricia Neal) understood that the American people would be drawn to a strong TV personality and would even support his political ideas and beliefs.
Consider the following quote from the film:

Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Jeffries: Sheep?
Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but they're all gonna be 'Fighters for Fuller'. They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!

It is clear that Rhodes understands that he has the American people at his fingertips ("sheep") and through his words and influence can get the Senator into the White House.

Have things really changed? I would theorize that they really haven't and looking at the professor's recent post, it seems that the connection between the media and high-powered government officials is much closer and tighter then I had thought, and we had assumed all semester.

Next, I must highlight what I think is the most telling and important quote from the film. Rhodes emphatically states:

"I'm not just an entertainer. I'm an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force... a force!"

If he viewed himself as "a force" 51 years ago, what can we say about the media of the modern day...maybe Strong Nuclear force (don't worry I found this on google not my own head).

While it might seem like I am exaggerating, after a semester of looking at the media's influence on everything from what we eat and wear to who we vote for, their power cannot be underestimated.

Last, what makes this more astounding is that it brings to the forefront the idea that you don't really need much experience of political knowledge to be a successful political analyst of talk show host (See my favorite example-hint look left)

All in all, "A Face in the Crowd" is two solid hours of black and white entertainment, which highlights some of the powerful, and I would add disturbing, effects of the media on the public (most of which we have highlighted and discussed throughout the semester).

Mr. Smith, Governor Blagojevich, the "political machine," and of course manipulating the press!

2008-12-14T21:50:00.017-05:00

How ironic it is to watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" in times like these.

The film begins with the governor Hubert "Happy" Hopper (played by Guy Kibbee), having to pick a replacement for U.S. Senator Sam Foley, who has passed away. Hopper's corrupt political boss, Jim Taylor (played by Edward Arnold), pressures Hopper to choose his foolish choice,while the governor's children want him to select Jefferson Smith (played by James Stewart), the head of the Boy Rangers. Unable to make up his mind, Hopper decides to flip a coin and when it lands on its side, next to a newspaper story on one of Smith's accomplishments, he chooses Smith. Hopper decides that this is a good choice because on the one hand Smith's wholesome image will please the people, and at the same time his naivete will make him easy to manipulate.

This first part of the movie made me chuckle, seeing as we are in the midst of dealing with the current situation with replacing Barack Obama in the Senate. The only difference here is that in the current situation it is not the political boss who controlled the governor, but simple greed.

The movie is very funny and of course includes a (cheesy) romance, between Smith and Susan Paine (played by Astrid Allwyn), the daughter of the very esteemed, but corrupt senator Joseph Paine (played by Claude Rains).

More importantly, after Smith gains support for a bill he was pushed to pursue by Paine, Taylor and Paine try to get him expelled from the Senate. In an effort to save himself, Smith tries to save himself by executing a filibuster on the Senate floor. During Smith's attempt, Taylor orders the newspapers and radio stations in Smith's home state to not report what Smith is saying and in some cases twist the facts.

Note the following conversation between Paine and Taylor:

Paine: He (Smith) can raise public opinion against us - if any part of this sticks...
Taylor: Aah, he'll never get started. I'll make public opinion out there within five hours! I've done it all my life. I'll blacken this punk so that he'll - You leave public opinion to me. Now, Joe, I think you'd better go back into the Senate and keep those Senators lined up.

We have spoken throughout the semester (See my post on "Street Fight") about the ability of the media to transform something that is factually incorrect into a "fact". And, just like in "Street Fight," we see in this film that it is a politician, or "machine boss" who can control the media and what is portrayed to the public as "fact".

While this movie is a comedy, and for that matter is very funny, there are many issues raised which are very important to the way that we view politics through the media and to the current situation in Illinois.

Furthermore, I would argue that if in the film Smith was able to keep a blog (see Kerbel and Bloom) the effects might have been drastically differnt, and in the new media environment the opportunites for equal presentation and fact checking are greater then they ever were.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is truly deserving of its academy award for Best Screenplay (along with its 11 nominations), and its status as a part of the National Film Registry because of it is definitely "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

"ObamaTube", for better or worse?

2008-12-02T01:23:00.004-05:00

In a recent article in U.S News and World Report, Kenneth Walsh discusses President-Elect Obama's strategies of using the media in the new internet age and his dealings with the media.

"Obama believes he can make his case more effectively without the media middleman. It's not that Obama dislikes dealing with reporters or editors. To the contrary, according to Chicago confidant Jerry Kellman. He says Obama "believes in the media as a concept," as the institution protected by the First Amendment in order to serve as a watchdog on those in power. But Obama also believes that the media sometimes get lost in trivia and sensationalism and ignore serious discussion, so he wants to appeal directly to everyday people as much as he can."

While this is a great article, I question whether Obama's elimination of the middle man is truly a good thing. On the one hand, we have seen (and especially recently in class) the problems with the way that news is portrayed to the American public. On the other hand, this "check" may be beneficial. I am honestly torn and am very interested to see just how this new plan plays out...

And some people say cartoons are just for kids

2008-12-01T16:32:00.019-05:00

As I was watching both The Simpsons and South Park, I couldn't help but see the not only funny, but important nature of the "Douche and Turd" and "Sideshow Bob Roberts" episodes.

In the South Park episode ["Douche and Turd" summary] we see many important points about government and voting in general.

1) In the very beginning when we the kids are talking in the hallway, we see their unified party get split over seemingly stupid things [like choosing between and turd sandwich and giant douche]. This seems to be an act making fun of common little ideas that seem to split political parties up.

2) In that same scene, Cartman misleads Butters (who by the way he is only using this one time for his own support and the rest of the group responds, "but you hate Butters") by changing the wording of his question to make the turd sandwich sound like a more appealing choice for the school's mascot. This can be a great reference for the importance of wording in polling and the manipulative nature political campaigns in general.

3) One of my favorite parts of the episode, and also a great political joke, is when Cartman rides in front of the school with his big float. This is interesting for two reasons. One, it shows that appeal of big and bright advertisements that don't say much, as Cartman seems to gain support from this move. And two, we see Butters on the float in a bikini, a possible reference to the appeals that many campaigns make not towards intellect but towards culture and meaningless, but popular things, in order to gain support.

4) The most serious (I know it seems oxymoronic since this is South Park) part of the episode are the scenes involving Stan not wanting to vote because he doesn't really believe in either of the candidates, and doesn't think his vote counts anyway. This seems to be a common feeling in America (especially in states like New York where the election goes for the Democratic Party almost all the time) and everyone tries to convince Stan to vote either because they think that it is important (his parents) or to further their own campaign (Kyle).

5) We see interesting campaign strategies throughout the episode. First, we have Cartman's float strategy (as notes about in #3). Second we have Cartman going door to door campaigning and bribing people to vote for him the delicious butterscotch candies.

6) During the debate, we see "the candidates" pointlessly fighting over stupid little things and constantly sidestepping the questions while pointing out each others problems. This is a clear play on the strategic nature of debates and the way in which SO many politicians (Sarah Palin is one that comes straight to mind) sidestep questions and point their fingers at their opponent instead of dealing with the issues and answering the question at hand.

7) Last, I think that there are two very interesting and important quotes from the episode. One, at Stan's banishment ceremony voting is called "our most sacred of rights," and two, "it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."

In The Simpson's episode ["Sideshow Bob Roberts" summary], while there is commentary on politics in general, it is mostly focused on commentary about campaigning and elections.

1) Birch Barlow, the radio host, calls the media "the 4th branch of government" and tries to use his radio show to try to influence the public to follow his "conservative" ways. This shows the power and influence of the media and their presentation.

2) Special interest group puts pressure on the Mayor which influences him to release Sideshow Bob from prison.

3) When choosing Sideshow Bob, the party says that they are looking for someone who has "name recognition" and "will do what he's told." I find this interesting for two reasons. One, they never thought of a woman as a possibility. And two, ironically, this seems like exactly what the Republican Party was doing when they chose Sarah Palin, which reports have shown lead to strong infighting because she wouldn't only do as she was told.

4) We see interesting campaign strategies. Sideshow Bob tries to win voters over with a comedy routine and seems to be pretty successful doing it. This hints to the fact that campaigns often times succeed based solely on stupidity and on visual and emotional appeal and not based on policy stances (As in #3 from the South Park analysis). Also, we see Quimby trying to use his status as the incumbent to his advantage in his commercial, which is really about some meaningless and stupid changes and improvements that he has made throughout his tenure as mayor.

5) My favorite highlight from this episode is when Sideshow Bob runs the ad about how Quimby can't be trusted and uses the fact that he, a convicted felon, has been released from prison by Quimby. I'm not sure what this is playing on, but it's definitely funny.

6) We again (like above #6) the meaningless chatter of the debate. And Sideshow Bob uses his comedy to try to win the viewers over. Also during the debate we hear the moderator making pointless and irrelevant statements before asking a question that has nothing to do with the question itself. This is obviously making fun of the pointless nature (in some people's minds) of debates and the terrible technique used by some moderators.

7) Lastly we obviously see the strong play making fun of voter fraud.

2008: A novel by Daniel G [EDITED]

2008-11-30T21:32:00.005-05:00

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

2008-11-28T11:10:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-24T16:43:00.015-05:00

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

2008-11-19T12:29:00.007-05:00

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

2008-11-18T11:19:00.002-05:00

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"

2008-11-17T12:07:00.003-05:00

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

2008-11-16T22:28:00.006-05:00

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

2008-11-04T12:10:00.007-05:00

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

2008-11-04T12:05:00.003-05:00

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

2008-11-02T20:18:00.004-05:00

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?

2008-11-02T15:33:00.002-05:00

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")

McCain's catching up?

2008-10-30T13:28:00.003-04:00

According to The Morning Call, John McCain is catching up to Barack Obama in campaign spending. While this doesn't come as too much of a surprise, the following quote from the article might surprise many and show that the spread in this election is much further is much more then any of the polls are indicating:

"A map of the states where McCain and the RNC are spending their money also illustrates the defensive nature of their 11th hour strategy. Except for Pennsylvania, the McCain-GOP focus was on trying to hold states that President Bush won in 2004."

The impact of television on elections

2008-10-28T16:50:00.014-04:00

In spite of the fact that I have argued in the past about the possibility of the internet overtaking television as the most important media source for political knowledge (and maybe even political influence), in light of the recent readings I would like to make almost the opposite claim that television plays the largest media role in political campaigns and this campaign is no exception. In addition, I believe that television is responsible for bringing information to the masses, which is then further looked into on the internet.

According to Broadcast Newsroom:

"In its newest study, Political Pulse , CAB found that people are most likely to first learn about a political candidate or issue from television, with 80% of respondents citing television as a likely source."

With this recent study in mind I would like to explore the impact of one of the most talked about clips from this campaign:

Although this quote has already received a lot of attention (See the results for a google search of "Mccain calls obama that one" which leads to over 14 million hits) I would like to point out two very important effects that this one small, two-word phrase had on the current election.

The first effect is that this one gesture lead to an assortment of reactions that stretched as far as accusing McCain of trying to make Mr. Obama look like "the dangerous other" who "Americans should not open the door for." These negative reactions are clearly not going to help Mr. McCain and might be something that voters remember when they enter the booth to pull the lever.
In addition, Mr. Obama, in barely reacting to the comment, continued to show his ability to maintain poise and control even in the worst of situations, which will remain in many voters minds and effect who they choose to vote for.
Lastly, this clip with its great camera work by almost every news station's camera crew brought to light what Mutz and Reeves (p. 3) point out about the effect of zooming in and different camera angles. They state that television networks sometimes create "a highly unnatural experience for viewers, one in which they view conflict from an extremely intimate perspective, and one that would be highly unlikely to occur in the real world." They further state that "the viewer's intimate perspective intensifies an already negative reaction." This new perspective (which is also aided by the "town hall" debate format may have lead to viewers seeing both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain differently then they had before and these viewers may therefore change (or decide for the first time) who they will vote for.

I would also like to point out one other important finding of the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) study quoted above and that is that television is the most likely place for people to FIRST find out political information. This being the case, I would still like to suggest that the internet plays a major roll in the way people get and react to political information (in addition, the internet did rank second in the place for people to first learn political information). In addition to the convenience of being able to search for almost anything and receiving information almost instantaneously, the internet also provides a place to watch (and re-watch) video clips. This, in light of the findings of Mutz, and Mutz and Reeves, can have great effect on the negative feelings people have towards one specific candidate and politician in general.

Another possible "Recount"?

2008-10-26T13:02:00.024-04:00

Although I do recognize that there has been much debate about Recount's accuracy and bias (a good example of this debate is found on Yahoo Answers), after watching the documentary and doing further research, I have to say that I agree with the review from The Dallas Morning News which stated that:

"Recount is accurate and fair. Some may find fault with the Republican team being presented as too thuggish or unscrupled. Others may object to the Democratic side seeming too conflicted and ineffectual. But behind all that spin is a movie that shows both sides of both sides. One more thing: It's not just fair and accurate, it's also pretty good."

I also believe that there are many important issues about the way that the United States government operates, the electoral process as a whole and how different campaigns build their strategy and act throughout a campaign.

First, towards the beginning of the documentary, the Gore and Bush legal teams chose to take two opposite stands on the media and the strategy they would take in dealing with the issue at hand. One the one hand the Gore campaign chose to use the media (there is a quote from the character playing Ron Klain (Kevin Spacey) gets up from the very first meeting as says "I have to go call the New York Times" and chooses to use as many protests (Like the one led by Jesse Jackson). On the other hand, James Baker (Played by Tom Wilkinson) says that he wants to see "no newspapers" and only chooses to use protests towards the very end of the campaign and the Recount process.

Second, the problem of military absentee voting could become a problem in this election. Although military absentee ballots will be accepted in the upcoming election, there are many technicalities in the absentee ballot process that make it almost possible for soldiers to ensure that their votes are counted. Furthermore, there have already been military absentee ballots thrown out throughout the country including in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Third, the current issue of Time Magazine has raised 7 possible things that may prevent people from voting, including "Long lines, ID checks and court challenges," which I not only agree with, but believe are issues that are not easily solvable.

Fourth, in the documentary Baker discusses the effect of the networks calling the election for Al Gore before the polls closed may have hurt the Bush campaign because people may have thought the election was over and therefore didn't go and vote. Although record voter turnout is expected this November, I believe that the fact that many people may think the election is over before it really is may come into play again (and not only towards the end of the day, but even before election day itself).

Lastly, the documentary not only shows the power of the "4th branch of government" (the media), but also shows the power of the 3rd brand, the Courts. Two highlights of the court's power from the documentary are the decisions made by the Supreme Court in Bush V. Gore , which many believe decided the ultimate outcome of the election, and the scene showing the Gore Campaign hoping for a certain Justice to preside over their initial hearing in Florida.

John McCain and President Bush

2008-10-19T10:32:00.003-04:00

Although President Bush did endorse John McCain in his bid for the presidency, I don't understand why they are so closely linked (as seen above in the recent Obama ad). Does is come as a surprise to anyone that Mr. McCain would vote with the REPUBLICAN president, even if it's at a huge percentage like 90%?

I would like to point out a few statistics from The Washington Post about Senate voting in general that might surprise you:

1) Senators vote with their party 84.2% of the time

2) Barack Obama votes with the Democratic Party 96% of the time.

3) John McCain voted with the Republican Party 88.1% of the time.

Now although this may show that John McCain goes out of his way to vote with President Bush as he has admitted to voting with the President "90% of the time," but I think there are more striking conclusions one can draw from these statistics:

1) If there was a Democratic President, Barack Obama would be very likely to vote with that President no matter what (note that he ranks 10th and Joe Biden ranks 5th in voting along party lines)

2) John McCain might truly be a "maverick" as his percentage is very low compared to most Senators.

I'm not writing this in order to endorse one candidate over the other, I am simply trying to point out why this newest ad may highlight something that isn't really an issue, and something that should be made an issue in the other direction (is surprises me that at this point seeing as the McCain campaign needs to try almost anything to stay in this race they haven't gone to more statistics like this, but there is still a long way to go)

More important then our past time?

2008-10-17T12:26:00.004-04:00

Although we don't know who will play in the World Series, Fox has agreed to delay the first pitch of game 6 (if there is one) to air a half hour Barack Obama ad.

Fox said in a statement:

"Fox will accommodate Senator Obama's desire to communicate with voters in this longform format."

Furthermore, Fox went on to say that

"We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his (Barack Obama's) program on Oct. 29. If requested, the network would be willing to make similar time available to Senator McCain's campaign."

This is not the first time in this campaign that a sports game's start time has been moves. You may recall that in September the NFL moved the start of the season opener between the Washington Redskins and New York Giants in order to ensure that the game would be completed by the time John McCain accepted the Republican party's presidential nomination.

What people really know

2008-10-16T17:00:00.002-04:00

Although we all know that Americans don't know too much about the election and the issues, but this is a funny clip from the Howard Stern show (Warning: this sight may be offensive to some):

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

[IN addition, I think that this is a good example of how pollsters can manipulate the answers that they get. Notice that the person asking the questions says everything with confidence and most of the responses are dont quickly without thinking)

Great New York Times resource

2008-10-16T12:49:00.002-04:00

I found this link that tracks the ad's of both Barack Obama and John McCain. It might be helpful for analysis now and in the future.

Negative Campaigning

2008-10-16T12:42:00.003-04:00

Negative Campaigning came to the forefront in last night's debate:

I want to point out a few things we have already discussed and few observations that I have about this specific part of the debate:

1) Neither of them really answered the question (which isn't a surprise, but I'm pointing it out anyway)

2) We know that negative campaigning works to some extent when it is not taken to too much of an extreme.

3) I loved McCain's attempt to defend the people who comes to his rallies. This is another point that isn't much of a surprise, but I think that it is still important that he stood behind his supporters. My only concern about the answer he gave is that it may turn away those who are undecided (and we discussed in class that at this point those are the people who the candidates need to be focusing on because most Americans have decided who they are going to vote for and very few of the already decided Americans will change at all at this point.)

The importance of the Jewish People

2008-10-16T12:05:00.005-04:00

Due to the fact that there has been an ongoing air war (see Right from the Left Coast) and even an editorial in the New York Times regarding the impact of the Jewish vote and the lengths that candidates go to in order to influence this very important vote, I decided to research the actual impact of the Jewish vote. Sadly to say, I have concluded that we probably don't matter all that much.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, outside of 1916, 1920, 1956 and 1980, the Jewish people have overwhelmingly voted for the nominee from the Democratic party in every presidential election. Furthermore, according to Jay Lefkowitz (who happens to be a member of my synagogue) in a 2005 article in Commentary Magazine:

"The central fact about the Jewish vote is, after all, not how changeable but how stable it is. American Jews do not merely favor Democrats; they are the second most reliable bloc of Democratic voters in the country, exceeded only by African-Americans."

Based on these two facts, it seems that the Jewish vote is important to elections and has had an impact the success, or failure, of the Democratic nominee. HOWEVER, we must remember another important fact about of the Jewish vote (again pointed out by Lefkowitz):

"American Jews constitute only 3 percent of the voting public"

So, in spite of the fact that we as Jews (and the strong efforts of Sarah Silverman) may think that we are a significant part of the election process and the lengths many candidates go to in order to influence the Jewish vote, we as Jews still don't matter all that much (many do argue that in this election 3% might be significant especially in this election, but I happen to disagree).

[For further reading you may want to see an interesting section on Yahoo Answers regarding this issue]

ELECTION DAY EVENT STILL NOTHING FINALIZED

2008-10-13T04:23:00.000-04:00

WHAT ARE WE DOING ON ELECTION DAY?

WE ONLY HAVE 3 WEEKS AND MUST SEND SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL IN ASAP.

SO FAR WE HAVE TV'S WITH FOOD:

WHAT FOOD?

HOW MANY TVS?

Hey it could happen

2008-10-06T13:39:00.001-04:00

I just wanted to share a joke with you all that was passed on to me.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=380002&altf=Ebojfm&altl=Hpsepo

Enjoy!

Do attack's work?

2008-10-06T09:15:00.002-04:00

According to and AOL News poll that I took this morning:

%55 of people who took the poll believe that using Barack Obama's past associations with Mr. Ayers is fair game.

%44 OF PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE POLE BELIEVE THAT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING (SUCH AS THIS ONE) WILL NOT BENEFIT EITHER CANDIDATE.

Just thought this was interesting food for thought.

Finger Pointing

2008-10-05T22:47:00.004-04:00

I think one aspect of West that is always interesting to note is "The Blame Game."

Although Dr. Pimpare has pointed out that this year's campaign is not as negative as those of years past there still is a significant amount of finger pointing.

For example:
1) Obama (and Biden in the debate) constantly comparing McCain to President Bush and saying that they are one in the same.
2) Sarah Palin constantly being called "inexperiences" (and for that matter Obama constantly being called "inexperienced" [remember he has NO executive experience])
3) McCain attacking Obama for "taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
4) McCain (and Palin) blaming (and attacking Obama) for his lack of support for the "surge" in Iraq.

These are just some examples, and I think that unfortunately this will never go away.
Attacking and blaming will always, as much as I hope this isn't true, be a necessary evil in campaigning.

Debate Ratings

2008-10-05T02:00:00.002-04:00

According to The Baltimore Sun:

Thursday night's vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was seen by 69.989 million viewers, the second-largest TV audience for any presidential or vice presidential debate since Nielsen started counting the number of persons watching debates in 1976.

An interesting statistic, and I think that this number could be significant, but I was unable to find any data about WHO was watching (if you find any PLEASE post it in the comments), which I think would much more useful to judge who "won" the debate (whether it was Palin appealing to the more entertainment hungry Americans or Biden appealing to those seeking more knowledge and skill from the Vice President).

One thing people keep missing in these debates is that without the "important" Americans in swing states and throughout the country watching them they don't serve their purpose. No one doubts that Poli Sci junkies like ourselves will spend 90 minutes of our lives watching this, but the question is whether or not the average American was watching (although I think many had to be because the number is so large, but that doesn't mean that the number is any more significant).

Blame the Media

2008-10-03T13:33:00.002-04:00

Who doesn't blame the media these days?

I do not disagree with the fact that the media distorts the statements of politicians, but was this really the time and place to say this?

I think Ms. Palin's words are definitely true, but maybe she could have (and should have) used this time to sound intelligent about something else and not point out the media's short comings?

What do you think?

Restateing the role (or lack there of) of the Vice Presidential candidate

2008-10-03T13:02:00.005-04:00

While some (Including William L. Benoit and David Airne) argue that Vice Presidential debates have some impact on the election we must remember that, as Dr. Pimpare has states numerous times, people don't vote for the name that is second in line when it comes time to step into the booth, they vote for the name at the top of the ticket.

Today's New York Times recalled the scene of Matthew Dowd (President Bush's chief strategist in 2004 who was working for Senator Lloyd Bentsen in 1988) sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt watching the debate between Vice Presidential candidates between Bentsen and Dan Quayle.
Dowd recounts:

“We were sitting in the audience, I was sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, and everyone was like ‘Oh that’s, great, great, but it didn’t matter anymore. You’re 30 days or so out and people are stating to look at the presidential candidates. The race had formed.”

Although I do agree with the general rule that these debates, and vice presidential candidates in general, don't have a huge impact on the ultimate outcome of the election, sometimes the candidates have an opportunity to have an impact, and Sarah Palin had, and lost, a golden opportunity last night. As Barack Obama continues to widen the gap between himself and John McCain, Ms. Palin could have helped the Republican ticket greatly and simply didn't take advantage of this great opportunity.
As Mr. Dowd stated:

"You’re in a race right now that is beginning to solidify into a five- or six-point Barack Obama lead, and each day forward with lead holding is not a good day for McCain. It doesn’t contribute to what they really need to do. They have just a little over 30 days to start to make up some serious ground, at a time when people are already starting to vote.”

It is because of this ground that must be made up that an "adequate" performance by Ms. Palin just wasn't good enough. Many people (myself included) were bracing for the worse because there is always potential (see Katie Couric interview) for Ms. Palin to do something catastrophic, and she didn't do that last night, but she also didn't perform like the Republican Party needed.

With the hole the Republican Party is in right now it will be a long and tough month for McCain and Palin and it seems that they need to start making up ground soon. I think that the turning point could come at the next presidential debate, and I hope that Mr. McCain doesn't dig a deeper hole so that we have some sort of race come election day.

Initial Reaction

2008-10-02T23:14:00.003-04:00

In this, my first post after the vice presidential debate, I want to express my initial reactions to the debate (although I have taken a little while to think about what I saw and was said).

I think that the debate was in one word "entertaining." Watching Ms. Palin skillfully (or maybe not so) side step questions throughout the first half of the debate was probably the best example of this.

I think if we look further we can say that each of the candidates had a different objective when they entered Washington University, and each succeeded:
For Ms. Palin it was simple, get America back behind her like they were after the convention. She will never be the skilled speaker or intellectual thinker that Mr. Biden is, but will be able to "rally the troops" around her and the Republican party.
For Mr. Biden, his objective was to show that he "knows what he's talking about" and to not attack Ms. Palin too badly because that would turn Americans off (because we love to show sympathy for Sarah Palin). Mr. Biden was able to show his experience and knowledge by answering most of the questions head on and looking straight into the camera while spitting out statistic after statistic.

All in all I think the debate was both "entertaining" and surprisingly low key.

I look forward to sharing lengthy conversation with all of you about this.

CLASS ON 10/6 UPDATED!!

2008-09-24T22:45:00.002-04:00

Class on 10/6 will take place in the conference room in the Admissions office on the first floor of first all.
I will be using my computer to hook up to those who want to video with us using ichat.

THE SCREEN NAME THAT WE WILL BE USING IS MediaandElection (aim)

PLEASE SEND AN INSTANT MESSAGE TO THAT SCREEN NAME USING ICHAT BY 4:40 EST SO THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF ANY PROBLEMS AND ARE READY TO GO BY 5.

What's Iraq got to with it?

2008-09-24T12:23:00.002-04:00

This ad is not only false (see factcheck.org) but for me it is distasteful in its use of an Iraqi veteran and images from Iraq.
Although I can see how a ban on handguns would be taking away some of the freedoms that our soldiers are fighting for, but this is assuming (first and foremost that this is indeed Mr. Obama's plan, which its not) that the freedoms which it protects namely "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" which can't be pursued if you are killed by the owner of a gun.
Although I don't want to get political about the right to own guns and all the issues that come with it, this ad highlights, yet again, the manipulation used in political advertising and the straight up lying that sometimes comes with it.

I really do hope that the use of our brave men and women who are fighting overseas in Iraq in political ads stops soon (although I know it won't) especially in ads that have little to nothing to do with the actual war that we're fighting.

Strong (empty) rhetoric

2008-09-24T12:01:00.002-04:00

In an article from late 2007, factcheck.org informs viewers of television ads of some of the tactics and strategies employed by political candidates:

a great deal of political rhetoric relies on language calculated to be both pleasing and empty. Cautious voters are wise to remember that candidates rely on them to fill in the blanks, sometimes interpreting their ill-defined language as specific promises they never made. If the candidates don’t define their terms, citizens shouldn't try to do it for them. Their ideas about “strength” or “patriotism” may not match the candidate’s. Remember to read the fine print, and avoid making judgments based only on fine-sounding words that could mean anything.

In addition to these concerns, the article warns the viewer to be wary of the repetition of certain strong terms.
The following ad titled "Dome" by the McCain campaign on 9/18/08:

In it I think we see two of factcheck.org's points highlighted:
1) The use of highlighted strong language (ex crisis, massive, billions, painful, skyrocketing etc.)
2) No real quotes or support are given for these claims. Although in many of their other ads the McCain campaign skillfully edits images and manipulates quotations (see most recently "Jim Johnson" and "Advice") to support their claims, none of this is done in this ad. I think the reasons for this are debatable, but the point is that the ad is trying to "teach" the viewer about Obama's policies without proving that that they are his actual beliefs in the hope that enough viewers will be persuaded by the simple language and accept it as true. Furthermore, we learn nothing from this ad about Mr. McCain's ideas of how to fix the economic crisis, is this because the ad is very short or because it would hurt the ad's message to start detailing actual fact about McCain's beliefs?

What does Biden think?

2008-09-23T19:33:00.002-04:00

This ad is one of my favorites from this election.
It uses brilliant camera work and editing that allows it to clearly convey its message.
I do admit that there is not much we learn about Mr. McCain, or Mr. Obama, from this ad, but that is irrelevant because its purpose is to attack Senator Obama through the words of his own running mate.
Furthermore, I think the best feature that this ad has is that it is able to attack the Obama/Biden campaign without using harsh language or real negative content. All too often there are ads that, when they are being watched, make the viewer feel almost uncomfortable because of their content and strong negative language and content. This ad is able to convey a very serious message (that not only does Senator Biden not believe on Mr. Obama, but that he also strongly believes in Mr. McCain's abilities) without making the viewer feel uncomfortable at all.

Early Voting Favors McCain?

2008-09-22T13:30:00.002-04:00

Early voting began today in states such as Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia and, according to the USA Today, "The campaigns of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are already focused on getting voters to the polls."

I think that, based on some of our class discussions, early voting seems to favor the McCain-Palin ticket. We have discussed the impact, or lack, of impact that a vice presidential candidate has on the overall outcome of the election once November comes, however we have never discussed the impact that these candidates have on early voters. Based on the high level of excitement that continues to surround the McCain campaign because of Governor Palin (which we assume will die down when it's time to pull the lever in November), it seems that people are more likely to vote on emotion at this time of year then they are in November (we will discuss the effect that emotion has in today's lecture, which seems to be little to non).

NOTE: I do not know any of this for sure and I have no evidence (yet) to support my claims, these are my own predictions based on our discussions.

ELECTION DAY EVENT STILL NOTHING FINALIZED

2008-09-22T01:57:00.001-04:00

The only idea we have so far was a comment on my last post from Matt:
"Let's go with this:
Sky Caf or Morgue Lounge
Three - Five Televisions.
Abigails Catering"

What does everyone else think? Any other ideas?

Lying in an ad?

2008-09-16T16:42:00.002-04:00

SCRIPT (As translated by The New York Times):
A male announcer says: “Obama and his allies in Congress say they are on the side of immigrants, but they’re not. Reports in the press say that their efforts were like ‘poison pills’ that caused immigration reform to fail. The results: ‘No’ to the guest workers program; ‘no’ to a path to citizenship, ‘no’ to secure borders. The reform didn’t pass. Is that being on our side? Obama and his Congressional allies — ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to govern.”

Today's New York Times reports that this ad may be inaccurate and misleading (shocking, I know). In the article, the Times states that Mr. Obama was among a group of Democrats who supported provisions to the original immigration bill, which ultimately lead to its unsuccessful passing. However, the Times also reports (which of course is not the image you get from this ad) that one of the key reasons the bill didn't pass was because of a group of Republicans who changed their votes in the 11th hour. In addition, after the bill failed to pass Mr. Obama was praised by Senator Mel Martinez a Republican from Florida who was a major backer of the bill.

Based on the professor's recent post it doesn't seem that this political strategy will ever end, and this is definitely unfortunate. In addition, it seems that this ad is trying to target a population that is less informed and more easily influenced, and vulnerable to specific issues.

This only further highlights the tragedy of the state of our media and political campaigning that one day will hopefully change some day soon.

Biased about bias

2008-09-12T13:12:00.003-04:00

While I was watching "Outfoxed" I kept thinking about how truly biased this documentary was against Rupert Murdoch and his decisions as Chairman and CEO of News Corporation, Fox's parent company.
Although the evidence throughout the documentary is very strong and does seem to prove that Mr. Murdoch commanded all members of the Fox News staff to ensure that their reports have a strong "conservative" bias, we must not forget why this documentary was made. On the documentary's website you find a link to "Foxattacks," a website completely and totally dedicated to attacking Fox News.

The one question I continue to ask myself after watching the documentary is whether there is anything wrong with Fox News being biased especially now that its "conservative" bias is well known throughout the public. I do understand that there is evidence which proves that people who watch Fox News actually know less about politics (I do not have the exact statistic, but would love to see it), but is there every real true reporting without any bias? Are we willing to say that all, or any, other news station's do not have biases towards certain opinions?

I do believe in the ideal role of the media as one that simply reports the facts (Leighly's "reporters of objective fact"), but I think that this is just that, an ideal. Whenever we as human beings speak or write, or even express ourselves in any way, about anything we tend to, maybe even subconsciously, do so with a bias towards one side of the argument. I am not saying that Fox News does not have a stronger biased then most, if not all, news stations, I am simply saying that they are not the only network guilty of this, and simply because there is a documentary, that itself is biased, about this fact does not mean we should be any more critical of Fox then we are of other networks. Why have no other documentaries been made? (the answer might be because there isn't such strong evidence against any other network, but I think this may be an attack on Mr. Murdoch and not on television networks with bias strong biases)

"Education" and the effects of distoring the facts

2008-09-11T13:18:00.002-04:00

The following ad is the one of the newest ads put out by the McCain campaign titled "Education"

According to an article in today's New York Times this ad severely distorts the facts of Obama's previous voting history and his views on sex education. While I am not making a judgment call on Mr. Obama's views, I do believe that this is a good example of exactly what we were talking about in class and what the professor explains in one of his posts. We do not know, and may never know, the effects that the spreading of these distorted facts (assuming they are as the NYT reports) will have on the election, but it is still important to note.

Additionally, this can fit right in with the debate over the use of any kind of distortion in campaign ads (as was noted by the professor), is this kind of distortion and manipulation the same as what the Obama campaign has been doing to highlight Mr. McCain's age? In my opinion the tactic used by the McCain campaign is much worse (although the Obama campaign's tactic is still bad), because this is not using editing techniques of actual footage in order to portray the picture in a different way, this (again assuming the NYT is accurate) is plain ordinary lying.

Reeher Outline

2008-09-10T17:00:00.001-04:00

Syracuse University (Maxwell School) “Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality”
• Occasional (Less then “daily or several times a week”) use of the internet to gather news (as opposed to either extreme [frequent or non-user]) is associated with higher levels of political activity (which includes activities such as contacting political officials, contributing money, attending events, voting etc.)

Levels of Participation (most to least):
Occasional > Frequent > Non-users

• Although we know that age (older=more active) and gender (male>female), this is not consistent with the conclusion of the study because the age with the most political activity is 53, which is also the average age of the non-user.
WHEN AGE, GENDER, INCOME AND EDUCATION ARE CONTROLLED THE ASSOCIATION HOLDS UP

• Possible explanations for this relationship:
o 1) People who are only occasional users are more active politically to begin with, they are more traditional in their orientation towards the internet (using it as ONE source of information and not the only one), at the same time the non-user is likely as less active to begin with.
o 2) While the occasional user is the most active, the internet has facilitated higher political activity (i.e. the occasional user is using the internet as one source to increase his/her activity, while it is still only ONE source and therefore the frequent user will automatically be less active then the occasional user)

2004 report from the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet called “Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Election”
• 10% of the population influence their fellow citizens in a variety of areas, and 69% of the people who showed high levels of internet-based political activity.

NOTE THAT THE FIRST STUDY FOCUSED ON THE INTERNET BEING THE INDIVIDUAL’S SOURCE OF NEWS, WHILE THE IPDI STUDY FOCUSED ON THE INDIVIDUAL’S GENERAL INTERNET USE

These findings could be very flawed because:
• 1) The number of people polled (only 600) is very small.
• 2) The 2 studies were taken at different times
• 3) The connection between these 2 things is hard to find and they may (or possible probably) be completely independent of one another.

ELECTION DAY EVENT

2008-09-10T09:16:00.002-04:00

Does anyone have any ideas other then getting a lot of TV's and some popcorn and watching the coverage on different channels? Where do we want to have the event?

Poltical activity, the internet and attention to politics

2008-09-10T01:41:00.002-04:00

As I read threw "The New Interest Index: Two Decades of American News Preferences" I couldn't help but think of the conclusions made in Grant Reeher's article "Log on, Tune Off? The Complex relationship between Internet Use and Political Activism".

In Reeher, according the Syracuse University study, occasional use of the internet was associated with more political activism while frequent use was associated with the second most activism. At the same time, the News Interest Index showed that "political" news is followed 3rd least after only "tabloid" and "foreign" news.

Although it may be a stretch to say so, I believe that the findings stated in the News Interest Index can help us understand why it is that internet use does not necessarily indicate political activism. I think that this is due to the fact that even while they are on the internet, or involved in any form of news searching, Americans simply don't have a general interest in politics (except maybe around voting season for major elections). It is safe to assume that if Americans are not interested in politics enough to look into the developments and events relating to it, they are less likely to get involved with politics even the slightest bit (interestingly, according to Reeher, the older a member of the population is, the more likely they are to be more politically active. I think that if age was factored into what the American people are interested in, and therefore watch the news about, we might find that the older population is more interested in political news and therefore are more politically active then the younger population).

Furthermore, I believe that it would be in any candidate's best interest to target the "less interested" population with strong and passionate rhetoric in order to influence this population and gain support from a group that would otherwise be uninvolved in the political system.

Another note on Blackberrys

2008-09-08T15:39:00.002-04:00

According to “'Election 2006 Online' Pew Internet and American Life Project (January 17, 2007)" the number of Americans who use the internet as their main source of poitical news had almost doubled (and by now I assume it has increased even more). As you all might assume I do believe that this large increase is due to the increase in Blackberry (and other internet-cellphone devices) usage which has made the internet even more available then it was at any point before.

Are our prayers finally being answered for better coverage?

2008-09-08T15:05:00.003-04:00

MSNBC's decision to remove Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchoring the coverage of the upcoming debates may finally indicate that our prayers for more widespread impartial coverage of political events such as the conventions and debates maybe finally be answered. In class many of us have often echoed the same complaints that former editorial director of MSNBC Davidson Goldin recently echoed when he stated, "The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming."

Although I do love Olbermann (mostly because of his roots on Sportscenter where he paved the way for future sport's anchors), I applaud MSNBC, and their parent network of NBC, for making this decision to remove him from his anchor position in spite of the fact that he has become the most successful network in the 12 year history of the network. It is nice to see that there might actually be network executives in the world who still do care about their position as either "Reporters of objective fact" or "Neutral Adversaries" and not simply as "Profit seekers" (although this move is in light of the fact that MSNBC did improve its total convention viewership by almost double from the 2004 conventions, it did not improve it's "competitive position" so this may in fact be a profit seeking move.)

For more information see today's New York Times (as well as most other papers).

The effect of the Blackberry on the media

2008-09-05T14:52:00.006-04:00

According to one of the charts in "The State of the News Media, 2008" the cell phone is the moblie device which has the "biggest impact on user's lives." In terms of media coverage it seems to me that more specific then the cell phone, the blackberry has had an even greater impact on the distribution of the media to the public and a greater impact on "user's lives." According to a July 2006 study, "a significant number of young people (13%) say they get news via a cell phone, a personal digital assistant such as a PalmPilot or Blackberry, or an iPod or similar portable music player." I believe that this number has significantly increased in the last 2 years as more "young people" use Blackberrys (or IPhones) as their cellphones and therefor have the ability to read the news at the click of a button from almost everywhere (I for one have started to read both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal everyday since I got my Blackberry and never would have done so otherwise with this great regularity).

The fact that more people, and more specifically young people, are able to use mobile devices such as Blackberrys to access the news has both good and bad effects on the public. On the one hand, more people are reading the news with more regualrity which hopefually makes more of these people aware of the events in the surrounding world that they never would have known about before. On the other hand, this new tendency continues to hurt the newspaper business and has already threatened to shut down some of them (The New York Sun among others).

I don't know what the long term results of this change will be, but I am happy to find that atleast some positive things are coming out of what seems like a great annoyance to society with people constantly on the moblie phones and Blackberrys and disrupting so many of those around them.

A new look at freedom of expression

2008-09-04T13:40:00.003-04:00

I wanted to share with you all an article by one of my favorite authors, the great Rick Reilly (for those who don't know Reilly, formerly of Sports Illustrated, now works for ESPN and writes a column usually having little to do with sports that is at the same time related to sports in some way). In this article he discusses a new rule in Virginia, a University founded by the great Thomas Jefferson, which prohibits students from expressing themselves at sports games using signs. Although I know Reilly is no scholar I think this article, especially in light of the recent arrests of reporters at each of the conventions, hits on a very sensitive and important topic.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3566872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

Enjoy!

Candidates spending big on ads

2008-09-03T11:36:00.002-04:00

According to Freep.com

More than $13 million was spent on Michigan TV ads from Memorial Day to Labor Day by candidates John McCain and Barack Obama and their supporters -- a 40% increase over 2004.

I constantly wonder why the candidates continue to spend so much (if you ask me these numbers are just ridiculous) on television advertisement and not on internet advertising and the like. I, like many others, thought that his election would see more of the internet boom and less on the television, but the shift hasn't taken place. Why is this happening? I think it is because so much internet advertising is "free" and done automatically using tools like Google and Youtube that the candidates don't want to "waste" their money (although they seem to have enough to do whatever they want to anyway) on something that will be done without spending a single dime.

P. Diddy Combs (NOTICE-there is profanity in this video)

2008-08-31T20:40:00.003-04:00

Sean P. Diddy Combs speaks out against John McCain over his choice of Sarah Palin.
If anyone can make sense of this video to me or explain to me what he's saying in simple english I'd be very grateful.

God help us if everyone votes for Obama based on only what this extremely wise and brilliant man has to say. It is scary that so many people will end up listening to this man and Oprah.

Obama's newest ad

2008-08-20T10:09:00.001-04:00

The following ad titiled "Economy," continue Obama's recent attack ad campaign on Senator McCain. I would just like to point out 2 interesting things about this ad:
1) It is not being aired nationally, most notably during the most popular time slots during the olympics, where Obamas positive ads are being shown (The two solutions I can think of are: a) Obama is scared of this getting too widespread, or b) he's smart enough to know that ads like this spread around the internet like wildfire and therefor doesn't have to waste the money)
2) Out of the 2 clips used to show that McCain doesn't think we are in/going into a recession one is from 2004 (Note to Mr. Obama- a lot can change in 4 years, just look at President Bush's ratings).

PS I also love how the people who are interviewed are from Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. I'm not saying that throughout the nation people don't share these views, but it is interesting to note the clearly calculated choice of people who are interviewed and shown in this ad.

Why I Love "am New York"

2008-08-11T10:31:00.001-04:00

This Morning in am New York, "New York's largest circulation daily," the conver article was ratings from the amNY staff on everything from sportsmanship to commercials. Winning the "commercial dart" for worst commercial was John McCain's negative attack ad, "Boo to Sen. John McCain for running a negative attack ad," this is just another proof to why amNY is the best newspaper in town.

A freindly piece of advice

2008-08-08T17:07:00.002-04:00

Note to all those who run for office:

Although I am inexperienced and have never run a major political campaign I have learned that no matter what you do the truth will always prevail. Every campaign has its summer interns who work tirelessly researching the decisions that any candidate has made and the truth will always prevail whether by the guilty party of by those who discover the lies. I hope we all have learned from the Bill Clinton and John Edwards events (to just name 2) that we should all but honest and truthful. I hope we can fix this soon because a coworker of mine told me today that she (and many people she knows) refuse to date politicians because they are so dishonest and I hope to one day be not only a politician but also a father and husband.

Chuck Norris

2008-08-08T13:43:00.000-04:00

Although it is questionable whether or not Mr. Huckabee actually approved this ad, I only wish, since the candidates seem to be bringing up celebrities and their revelevance to campaigning, that someone would bring Chuck Norris back onto the scene so he can enlighten us further.

Dirty Politics

2008-08-08T13:30:00.001-04:00

The Obama campaign responded to McCain's most recent ad with the following statement:

"The Obama campaign slams back. Hari Sevugan, a spokesman, issued this statement: This ad is a lie, and it’s part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam.
“Even though a host of independent, nonpartisan organizations have said this attack isn’t true, Senator McCain continues to lie about Senator Obama’s plan to give 95% of all families a tax cut of $1,000, and not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 a single dime.
“The reason so many families are hurting today is because we’ve had eight years of failed Bush policies that Senator McCain wants to continue for another four, and that’s what Barack Obama will change as president.”"

-Courtesy of The New York Times online
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/new-mccain-ad-hits-obama-on-celebrity-again/)

MY ONLY QUESTION FOR YOU MR SAVUGAN IS WHY YOU AND MR OBAMA CAN'T BE "THE BIGGER MEN HERE" AND NOT TAKE SHOTS BACK, BY DOING THIS YOU ARE ONLY STOOPING TO THE LOW LEVEL THAT YOU CLAIM MR. MCCAIN SHOULDN'T BE AT.

Something to keep in mind when observing the Media and Politics

2008-08-07T13:39:00.000-04:00

"Political advertising is effective...when it ties into an overall narrative"

-Mark McKinnon, a media strategist and former McCain adviser who worked for both of Mr Bush’s campaigns

Courtesy of The Financial Times
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42fae334-63f4-11dd-844f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1)

Good work Mr. McCain

2008-08-07T12:26:00.000-04:00

"A senior adviser to Barack Obama has blamed recent attack advertisements comparing the Democratic presidential hopeful to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for a dip in Mr Obama’s polls with voters.

Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate majority leader, said in an interview with the Financial Times that the Mr Obama’s Republican rival John McCain was seeing a “short-term blip” as a result of the advertising..."

-Courtesy of The Financial Times
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42fae334-63f4-11dd-844f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1)

As bad as it gets

2008-08-07T00:03:00.001-04:00

When Paris Hilton is getting involved in politics you know we're in trouble (and who knew she could speak so coherently)

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

An important fact to keep in mind

2008-08-06T15:02:00.000-04:00

Sometimes the truth comes from the worst and most untruthfull places:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister