The Inheritors

The R Word

2009-03-22T02:09:00.002-04:00

Not unlike Jed Bartlett's on air gaffe about the intelligence of governor Richie, Obama's offensive remark the other night just seems a little too perfect. It rings of Josh Lyman, i.e. Rahm Emanuel.

In a moment of "unscripted" banter, President Obama commented that he bowls like the special Olympics. Now, as someone who has closely followed Barack Obama for almost three years now, the content of the quote itself does not cause suspicion. He has, on occasion, been insensitive. It's human. What is surprising though, is the piss poor grammar. "I play like the special olympics" is not only awkward phrasing, but doesn't make sense. I play like I am in the special olympics seems much more on spot for such an articulate and eloquent person.

Now, that gaffe does a number of nice things for the president as well. It assures that the Leno interview is watched by tons of people, as it is played online. It takes a fairly innocuous outing and turns it into a week to two week story. It also, and this rings of Michelle, calls attention to a racially driven cause.

It just so happens to neatly correspond with the new R-word campaign run by the same people who run the special olympics. They are taking on language itself, a very Obama thing to do, to "change the conversation" about mental handicaps.

And, finally, although a tad conspiracy theorestic in nature, the organization responsible for the r-word campaign is JPKF, or the Joseph P Kennedy Jr Foundation. A foundation, which is presided over by Barack's good friend Sen. Edward Kennedy and a Mr. Steven M. Eidelman, a good friend of Vice President Joseph Biden's from undergrad.

Fun, huh?

Marxist's Critique on CNN

2009-03-16T11:37:00.002-04:00

Slow, subtle, and not particularly articulate, still....

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A friend of mine, a senior leader in a pharmaceutical company, spends all her spare time doing yoga, taking classes in comparative religions, reading about spirituality, speaking with others about their beliefs. Just talking about it energizes her.

Which is not how she feels about her day job.

"Why don't you leave your job and do something with this full time?" I asked her.

"I've thought about it. But I could never make the kind of money I make now."

She might be right. But the question isn't whether she could make as much money. Even if she stays in her job she's unlikely to do that in this economy.

The question is far broader and more interesting. What would her life look like -- in every dimension she values -- if she decided to pursue her passion full time?

Rest of article here.

Extreme Measures

2009-01-06T12:26:00.004-05:00

It's the end of the... Wait

2009-01-01T15:04:00.000-05:00

More Bailout, this time for newspapers.

Complexity is not a Vice: A History and Future of Campaign '08

2008-12-31T21:46:00.002-05:00

"So, at 11 o'clock am on Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults." John Stewart, The Daily Show.

On March 18th, 2008, Barack Obama stood before a small audience at the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and delivered arguably the biggest and most important speech of the presidential campaign. Responding to the controversy surrounding his former pastor's, Jeremiah Wright, racially divisive remarks, Obama chose to make the moment not specifically about Rev. Wright, but about the politics of race in general [Full text of speech].

Obama began, as many of his speeches do, with a relevant, brief history of America, in this case a history surrounding "the nation's original sin of slavery." He then, in his professor voice/persona, walked American through a history of race, contextualizing the civil war, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement in his own campaign. He then began to bluntly articulate and identify "black anger" and "white resentment." By doing so, he sought to air the troubles of a nation divided, in the hope of finally healing them. He ended his speech with a simple plea, one that became an enduring mantra that will forever be associated with his name:

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time."

The last lines of his speech were dedicated to a small, subtle anecdote with powerfully simple implications. That anecdote asks the listener to do something almost no other politician in the entire 20th century asked. The anecdote tied together racial tension with racial union, and asked the audience to allow that paradigm to remain unresolved, to hold those two concepts apart and discrete. He asked us, not only to open ourselves to his otherness in that instant, an otherness that exists in an eternal dialogue within himself, but also to all otherness.

Yet, this was utterly and completely missed by a 24 hour news media supposedly dedicated to providing the public with news.

The Daily Show "A More Perfect Union"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Dialogue Begins

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Is there something wrong with this picture? Should the mainstream media do something more than they did here? How could they have completely and utterly missed the point? And, perhaps most importantly, how can it change?

Before change can be proposed, the problem must be diagnosed. And, in that sense, the first real question to ask is this - is there something wrong at all? In order to really have a handle on that question, the first thing to do is identify what should be, what is an idealized form of media, and how should it have reported Obama's speech?

One place to begin is with a 19th century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville. Tocqueville traveled to America in the mid 19th century and brought back to Europe a number of ideas that he wrote down in his expose on American Life: De la démocratie en Amérique (Democracy in America). Mikahl Bahktin, a Russian literary theorist, once said "it is only in the eyes of another culture that a foreign culture reveals itself fully and profoundly." In Tocqueville's case, such a statement barely manages to capture the depth of Tocqueville's elegant insight.

His diagnoses of 19th century American media is predicated on a certain assumption, a foundational tenant of democratic theory. He believes that an informed public is best for democracy. That a newspaper, then, has the responsibility to persuade and inform the public so that they form together and pursue "common activity." Tocqueville believes that newspapers, and by extension I mean to suggest all forms of news whether in print, on television, or on the internet, have a civic obligation to inform the public.

Translating Tocqueville into modern discourse, John Stewart appeared on Crossfire to advocate that same value of civic responsibility.

Stewart and Tocqueville both seem to claim that a news organization has a civic responsibility to inform the public, to "help us out." Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel take this idea even further in their book The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. They lay out nine general points, which they believe are key functions of news media.

"Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.

Its first loyalty is to citizens.

Its essence is a discipline of verification.

Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.

It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.

It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.

Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience."

Wielding these nine can be cumbersome, luckily two common themes run through this list: Advocacy and Transparency. Kovach and Rosentiel, along with Stewart, Tocqueville, and a number of others (see Jan Leighley's Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective ) define the obligation that news media has toward the public in those two general ways.

Advocacy is a general word combining the concepts of "loyalty to citizens [...] provide a forum for public criticism and compromise [...] comprehensive and proportional, [etc.]" This basically gets back to Tocqueville's idea of an informed public. News media should advocate for the public in ways singular, isolated individuals cannot. It is the true fourth estate in this sense, an organization tasked with the obligation to advocate, and by advocating informing the citizenry so that the citizenry can make the proper decisions.

The second goal, transparency, is a main aspect of advocate journalism, in Leighley's word "the public advocate model," kind of a figurative tactic if your overall strategy is one of advocation, so to speak. To make transparent, to clear up, to open doors, pursue truth, to unopaque: these are the tools with which journalist can expose government and politics to public scrutiny. A prime example of this form of media is Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's All The President's Men, their heroic investigatory journalism that scrubbed the windows of Nixon's White House clean for all to peer in.

So, if the ideal is the above, what is the current state of news media? Well, in Journalism.org's report, aptly titled, "The State of the News Media 2008", we can begin to see some disturbing trends. Trends that, followed to their logical extensions, make news media, mainstream news media to be exact, less like Woodward and Bernstein and more like Network.

Among the newer trends like blogging (which will appear later) and things of that nature, one trend that stands out is the claim that:

"The agenda of the American news media continues to narrow, not broaden. A firm grip on this is difficult but the trends seem inescapable. A comprehensive audit of coverage shows that in 2007, two overriding stories — the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential campaign — filled more than a quarter of the newshole and seemed to consume much of the media’s energy and resources. And what wasn’t covered was in many ways as notable as what was. Other than Iraq — and to a lesser degree Pakistan and Iran — there was minimal coverage of events overseas, some of which directly involved U.S. interests, blood and treasure. At the same time, consider the list of the domestic issues that each filled less than a single percent of the newshole: education, race, religion, transportation, the legal system, housing, drug trafficking, gun control, welfare, Social Security, aging, labor, abortion and more. A related trait is a tendency to move on from stories quickly. On breaking news events — the Virginia Tech massacre or the Minneapolis bridge collapse were among the biggest — the media flooded the zone but then quickly dropped underlying story lines about school safety and infrastructure. And newer media seem to have an even narrower peripheral vision than older media. Cable news, talk radio (and also blogs) tend to seize on top stories (often polarizing ones) and amplify them. The Internet offers the promise of aggregating ever more sources, but its value still depends on what those originating sources are providing. Even as the media world has fragmented into more outlets and options, reporting resources have shrunk."

This a particularly scary thing once you begin to realize the extent to which the mainstream media has conglamorized. The picture below barely demonstrates the extent to which mainstream media suffers from a pack mentality, fraught with Jonny-come-lately reporting.

Kovach and Rosentiel focus on another aspect of this overall issue, cutting even further to the heart of the problem.

"The public, in turn, increasingly distrusted journalists, even hated them. And it would only get worse. By 1999, just 21% of Americans would think the press cared about people, down from 41% in 1985.7 Only 58% would respect the press's watchdog role, a drop from 67% in 1985. Less than half, just 45%, would think the press protected democracy. That percentage had been nearly ten points higher in 1985.8

What was different that day in Cambridge was that many of the journalists in the room -- and around the country -- were beginning to agree with the public. "In the newsroom we no longer talk about journalism," said Max King, then editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We are consumed with business pressure and the bottom line," agreed another editor. News was becoming entertainment and entertainment news. Journalists' bonuses were increasingly tied to the company's profit margins, not the quality of their work. Finally, Columbia University professor James Carey offered what many recalled as a summation: "The problem is that you see journalism disappearing inside the larger world of communications. What you yearn to do is recover journalism from that larger world."

Now, I'm sure that all of you old Marxist's out there are screaming, "this is it! The fundamental problem is capitalism after all." And, in that way, there is a weird sense of irony to this whole thing, since Alexis de Tocqueville was perhaps the Adam Smith of France in his belief in Laissez-faire philosophy. But Tocqueville, as well as Smith, acknowledge something greater than the almighty dollar. They argue that morality, that moral sentiments, should stem from moral obligation/religion/etc. not from capital. Whether right or wrong, it seems that many modern networks are more concerned about the "bottom line" than any form of "civic or moral obligation" to the public.

So, we have pack journalism and capitalism unchecked by external morality (I know, I'm qualifying it anyway, because I do not want to open that pandora's box) as issues distorting the quality of modern mainstream media. A final piece comes from a small, neat little book by Russell Peterson titled Strange Bedfellows: How Late Night Comedy Turns Democracy into a Joke. He makes one insightful observation that directly criticizes the style of mainstream media's coverage of politics. He argues that modern coverage is character based. Leads are not about processes. Leads are about who did what today. Stories are not about how this bill made it to the House floor. Stories are about how these two congressman fought with each other for hours over the bill on the floor. Character driven news, as Peterson points out, often misses the larger story, the 'brokenness of the system itself' as Stewart would say, and further, creates more distance between the audience and the politics. Instead of dealing directly with the politics, a competition or character is superimposed between the audience and the actual event.

Think about this in the context of Obama's "A More Perfect Union." Rev. Wright, and to a lesser extent Obama's white grandmother, as well as the competition of the campaign itself were all superimposed between the audience and the mechanics of the speech. The coverage, in fact, almost never dealt with the words of his speech.

And this is the good coverage. The bad is much uglier. You see, standing at the opposite end of the continuum from the Washington Post's Watergate is Foxnews' coverage of Obama's Madrassah. (It begins around the 1:51 mark)

This is, in a word, bad. It is "hurting America." If Americans are going to be able to confront the problems facing them in the 21st century, they need more than character driven, greed based, pack journalism.

It isn't all bad though. There is some hope. Hardball went through a small breakdown of the opinions of Obama's speech.

The coverage is a tad strange ("what are White men afraid of?"). But, some media organizations, whether it is the Dallas Morning News or the Philadelphia Inquirer, began to, at least, deal with the language. It brings to mind an enduring theme of a West Wing episode.

Perhaps by complicating the nature of the event itself, of the public discourse, American's can solve the problem that mainstream media posses to democracy.

In order for that to occur though, access to politics needs to change. In order to elevate the discourse, more people and more divergent opinions have to somehow enter into the national conversation. Otherness, in a sense, needs to be incorporated into the American dialogue.

Well, the first bullet in the side of mainstream media, and one that hits extremely close to the mark, is the medium which I am right now using - the internet. Aside from the stylistic advantages of the medium, like imbedded video, linking, instant feedback, and global distribution, the internet has begun to kill newspapers at their source, funding. Ad revenues for newspapers have steadily declined the past few years. This means that newspapers can no longer support large staffs, and even some can no longer afford printing. Some journalists are beginning to forecast that there will no print newspapers within the next two years.

Viral video, blogging, and online independent journalists are threatening mainstream media's position as the shaper of public discourse. Moveon's involvement with the Howard Dean 2004 campaign, the Dailykos, the NRO, Thinkprogress, Drudge, etc.: are all entities, independent of mainstream media, that now regularly define public discourse. Some of their exploits are catalogued in Dan Gilmore's We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By The People, For The People. Yet, that book was published almost five years ago, the role of the internet has since completely pervaded the field of media and politics. Think back to the above Hardball sketch, the number of youtube hits that "A More Perfect Union" did not have an insignificant place in the rhetoric surrounding the show (it now has 5,633,943 views, just in case you were wondering).

The internet, as a wide open medium, by its very features, incorporates otherness into its overall mechanics. Anyone can write, anyone can read, and anyone can post a video.

Access to the political process and to the voicing of opinions has never been greater or more egalitarian. And although there has been some recent controversy about the egalitarian nature of the internet, for now it appears that this medium has never been more affordable. A new report by the PEW center details this exchange.

Alternative television shows too, like the aforementioned Daily Show, and its kid brother The Colbert report, are shown to have viewers who can demonstrate a greater amount of knowledge of current political issues than other news stations. The funny bullet, if you will, as Peterson implies, directly undercuts and subverts mainstream media, portraying it as a part of the broken system of American politics ("you are...ugh...Partisan hacks").

But both internet and alternative television means nothing in the scheme of things. We all know what the biggest problem is. We all know how the mainstream media can continue to pull a veil of ignorance over our eyes. We all know the reason. There are two vital aspects of access. One, we have accounted for, the medium. Those are there, media is in place and available.

The second one is even more important. It is, in a sense, the silver bullet. Education. One needs to know how to speak before using the methods of communication now so open before him or her. Only 68.6% of high school students graduated the year I did, in 2006. And that's just the national average. Alaska's is almost below 50%. And to participate in complex public discourse one needs at least a college degree, and that rate is even lower. Of course, too, anecdotally, I know people who cheat their way through Ivies and don't learn the necessary information that allows them to participate in the public discourse. Going back to John Stewart's quote at the beginning of the blogessay, most of American's are not adults, in the educational sense.

When we talk about access, when we talk about politics, the conversation really has to begin and end with education. The first article we looked at this year, initiated a discussion about the effect of education on media bias. The final conversation we had, which centered around the egalitarian nature of the internet, included a conversation about education.

Aside from the fact that education, reading, and curiosity open people to otherness. An educated public, a public with the tools it needs, is a public so powerful that mainstream media would no longer be able to get away with any of these shenanigans. In “The Consequences of Political Knowledge and Ignorance,” Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter say this outright. What Americans know about politics matters.

Yet, there are still major problems. Even online, cloistered communities form. Xenophobia still drives American discourse perhaps even more than self interest. Talk radio, mainstream media, and other poor and imperfect mediums still shape the American conversation.

On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. Before he is sworn in, a popular pastor from the conservative Californian county of Orange County will lead the nation in prayer. Rich Warren's presence at the inauguration has already caused significant controversy. And in the post election media depression, developments in his story has been close to the top of the reporting wires.

Here's just a brief summary of these recent events:

This is "A More Perfect Union" on a larger, one might even say, Presidential scale. By opening the inauguration to otherness, by forcing mainstream media to cover a dialogue, by forcing conversation (even if mediated) between liberals and conservatives, pastors and gays, Obama has complicated the American narrative. This is an education for all sides of American values. This is an elevation of the American discourse.

Notice how the Fox News interviewer asked his pundit "what would you say to them [gay groups angered by the choice] today?" Notice that Rachel Maddow begs Rich Warren to keep talking because "you are making the job of making the case against you so much easier." This is what Maddow misses though. For President Barack Obama this is not a "stumble," this is an airing of religious baggage in line with the aforementioned West Wing's approach to trade with China.

Close to half, if not more than half, of American's believe what Rick Warren believes, if Prop 8 is any indication. Those people do not see themselves as bigots or as intolerant. This public airing is the beginning of dialogue that will hopefully sensitize America to different sides of the opinion, while simultaneously opening up those who have never encountered otherness before. Exposure, not isolation, is the mechanic of American democracy.

As Mark Twain says, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." In a strong sense, this is the travel he is referencing, from the O.C. to D.C., from the Chattahoochee River to the Hudson River, from the Golden Gate Bridge to the bridge to no where. The above is exactly how the media should behave, according to the likes of Tocqueville and Stewart. Here is a spirited debate about one of the landmark issues of our time. This is exactly the sort of response the Media should have.

Testing Future Posting

2008-12-31T17:40:00.000-05:00

Testing One...Two

Testing

Le Début de la Fini

2008-12-16T16:10:00.001-05:00

Detroit newspapers to end daily home delivery

Voices

2008-12-15T16:06:00.003-05:00

Lawrence.com

Chi-town Daily

Are Bloggers Reports?

2008-12-15T12:00:00.003-05:00

Great post Daniel. I think you are right on. It is a hard question to answer, yet one with significant implications. Reporter, as you pointed out, is a fluid term. Perhaps, it is even a meaningless one now. Perhaps, writer or author might be more appropriate at this juncture.

Let's face it, one of the implications of the word reporter, namely the journalistic responsibilities that such a title incurs, are useless. One of the reasons why I had a difficult time with Steve's proposition that the daily show and the colbert report must entertain journalistic ethics is that journalistic ethics themselves aren't what they used to be. As we've pointed out time and again, as the main stream media fractures, and different networks align with different agendas, the whole notion that the media must maintain an objective or fair face is undermined. Sure, there are a few remainders, but by and large, I believe this holds true.

A writer must anticipate objections in order to have a clear and strong argument. A reporter often gets to hide behind the reputation of the paper he or she writes for. An author must maintain coherence and consistency in order to make an effective rhetorical claim. A reporter often can write toss away wires, where he or she is less accountable for the language and is more focused on the content (as if those two were not inseparable).

All in all, it might be more useful to talk about writing responsibilities than reporting ones.

Daniel, I am going to disagree with you on one point. As of now, I might agree, blogs tend to run in ideological company. However, MSM is more and more often purporting that they behave in a neutral way, than actually acting like one. One thing we've yet to take into account is web 2.0 technology of which blogs are only the vanguard.

Imagine, five years down the line, roughly the same distance between us and Gilmore, a forum for collaborative policy research, incorporating multiple convergent and dynamic opinions of not only lay citizens but public officials as well. Sure, one thread might be more or less neutral than another, yet the overall effect would be one of constantly shifting overarching attitudes creating a refrain of net neutrality.

If the role of the media is to be the fourth estate, then such a forum circumvents it. In a way, the media is a window. It allows us to peer into the unknown of the government. Yet, often the glass can get smudged, dirty, or even down right opaque. What if the panel was simply removed?

Throwing up in my mouth

2008-12-08T15:14:00.004-05:00

Okay guys. I want to underscore the following by stating that I rarely do this. Most of you have gotten use to my debating style throughout the semester. I like playing devil's advocate, sharpening ideas, and complicating questions. I do not like character based or ad hominem arguments, as well as echoes.

That's why it was incredibly frustrating to read Nicholas Lemann's piece in the New Yorker. At first, I was surprised at the quality of writing. It is terrible compared to many of the other pieces published by the New Yorker. Just read this aloud:

"That permits it to break the long-standing choke hold on public information and discussion that the traditional media—usually known, when this argument is made, as “gatekeepers” or “the priesthood”—have supposedly been able to maintain up to now."

The cadence is rough, a casual cacophony of syllables married to the utterly awkward relationship between colloquial and formal usage ("that's the catechism" - a contraction and an SAT word do not belong in the same sentence!). "PermITs IT To brEAK the lonG-sTANDing CHoKE." The linguistic dissonance in this, and many other, sentences is only outpaced by the snobbery and stupidity that pervade his content.

From what I gather, the main thrust of his argument is that new journalism has to live up to "good" standards. It can't delight in "polemic rhetoric." And it must not be a medium that encourages "slander, polemic, and [gasp] satire."

Not only does he, on the one hand, ignore the value of new media (like the citizen journalist Crankydoc points to here.), but he also assumes that there is nothing inherently valuable about slander, polemic, and satirical rhetoric. Apparently he forgot to read his Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin this morning.

By way of evidence, he parades out straw men, like the detestable Markoff interview and toss away ad hominems "sneering [bloggers]."

But his worst rhetorical sin is that half way through the article, while pontificating on the history of American journalism, he concedes his main point.

" I am in an especially good position to appreciate the benefits of citizen journalism at such moments, because it helped save my father and stepmother’s lives when they were stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: the citizen portions of the Web sites of local news organizations were, for a crucial day or two, one of the best places to get information about how to drive out of the city. "

So, annoyed, I looked him up. Nicholas Lemann, Dean of the Pulitzer School of Journalism at Columbia University.

The Multi Media Rhetoric of Prop 8

2008-12-03T15:02:00.003-05:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Sharpening the point

2008-12-03T14:31:00.003-05:00

I'd like to sharpen the point that I less than articulately made in "backdoor buddies."

One thing that the Internet supplies is access. Never before has any individual had so much information at his or her finger tips. I can link from site to site in minutes, or in hours as today's YU network seems to suggest. I can learn more about government, about what bills are up for debate, who's debating, and what the argument actually is, I can learn that in minutes, lying in a bed, half way around the world.

In other words, the ability to learn and consequently participate in politics is there. In fact, it is more convenient to participate in politics than to run across the street to a convenience store.

Yet, although there is great convenient access to the processes of policy, it still does not mean that the process is completely transparent. Some meetings, I am sure, are being moved to back rooms as we speak, in light technological advances. Just as terrorists go low tech, I'm sure Congress has gone on to passing notes. In fact, if I was incredibly cynical, I could argue that the greater the access to information the greater opportunity for manipulation.

Those are the points I was trying to make earlier.

Something else to consider

2008-12-02T11:53:00.002-05:00

When Colbert presents the news he articulates much of its content though his character. This creates, in effect, a facade of dual newses. There is the news which Colbert is presenting, the outrageous conservative perspective. And there is the news which the Colbert Report is presenting, the "real" news that contrasts with the outrageous conservative perspective.

The "Real" news, though, is in fact the Colbert Report's interpretation of the real news, in the same vain as any nightly news cast. Yet, the fundamental difference is that it is presented contrast to comedy, making the real news seem even more truthful and raw.

Theatre

2008-12-01T23:41:00.003-05:00

Steve,

Just to finish off from class. Let's assume, like you suggested, that Stewart was in character for his interview on Crossfire. You argued that such a thing was inappropriate. Stewart can no longer hide behind his character as a comedian, since he has the same sort of journalistic responsibilities.

Stewart has a rebuttal though. He turns to Tucker and says "hey buddy, you're in character too." How can we expect Stewart to appear as a real person on Crossfire, break character (if he is even in one) for the sake of someone else's theatre?

Back Door Buddies

2008-12-01T14:29:00.002-05:00

One common thread that seems to link Bullworth, Bob Roberts, Southpark and the Simpsons is the conspicuous distance between politic and public. It is as if the public is somehow not privy to the actual mechanics of policy making.

Bullworth uses this theme to develop its story line surrounding its criticism of the conglomorazation of news corporations, and the resulting interests that these news organizations now have that might often stand in direct contrast to their roles' as public advocates.

This distance creates mystery and, dare I type, some sexiness to the role of politics. That attraction partially explains the draw of, not only shows like The West Wing, but also of behind-the-scenes special and documentaries.

Yet, in the age of the internet has politics become more transparent. I can find any bill, trace its growth, identity its additions, seek out public donor lists to campaigns, compare donors to candidates, identify the candidates on the committee with special interests, and link those interests to bill additions all without leaving my bed. If I wasn't even sure how a bill becomes a law, I could've just wikipediad the whole darn thing anyway.

To riff off of Thomas Friedman, the flattening of access to information, the expansive reach of the internet has made government more transparent.

Now as Pop Culture Curator pointed out some time ago, more access doesn't always mean more transparent. In fact, access might just be another layer of control inside a matrix we all seem to inhabit. Yet, greater access does lead to more activism, more public awareness, and more participation.

Thoughts about Bedfellows

2008-11-30T17:36:00.002-05:00

pumpkin pie and spinach metaphor

This metaphor that Peterson asserts in his introduction is full of gravy. He links pumpkin pie with late night comedy in the context of a PEW study that suggests 61% of Americans below the age of 30 get their political information from that outlet. The metaphor also implies that people hate news, spinach being hated (recalling GHWB as well). Spinach, though, is also linked to strength alla Pop-eye with a later line of Peterson's "topical comedy is an inadequate substitute for news." So, what is actually going on with this metaphor?

Press corps dinner, Colbert

Peterson argues that Colbert was heroic, not because of the jokes themselves, but because of his role as underminer of the man sitting next to him. He continues this idea later contrasting Colbert to the medieval court jester. Peterson implies that they are not the same, and that in the 1200s, Colbert might have lost his head.

Political Satire vs. Comedy about Politics

This is arguably one of the most important distinction Peterson draws in his book about distinctions (even the title sets up a dialectic). He argues that Comedy about politics is anti political in nature, he demonstrates this with the timeless joke which I'll now update - if Hillary, Obama, and McCain were in a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, and the boat flipped over and all of them drowned, who would win? America. It is apathetic and at its core makes the claim that politics are bad. Political satire, practiced by Colbert, Stewart, and Maher, engages politics. He later makes the point that one of the most endearing qualities of Stewart is that he in fact "cares" about politics.

Now, if one were to envision this dialectic as a Venn Diagram, the deconstruction of this argument becomes readily apparent. The late night jokes of Letterman, Leno, etc. stem not from a deep apathy, for if an apathy that deep existed no one would ever want to hear jokes about politics. Rather they stem from an even deeper desire to engage politics, tempered by a cynicism born of the distance (the close door, the back room deal, etc.) that both political comedy and real news journalism maintains between the public and the government.

Only satire, as Peterson demonstrates later, has the power the articulate that distance, thus making it manageable and, most importantly, ignorable.

conflation of journalistic and comedic ethics (crossfire)

Those were all warm ups. This, as demonstrated by the oft cited crossfire video , is perhaps a key feature of any discussion involving media, comedy, and politics. After familiarizing ourselves with everyone from Murdoch to Tocqueville, we have a grasp on the role of the fourth estate. Yet, that fourth estate has now, according to many, lost its way in light of the conglomorization (good new word) and the theatricitization (I went the extra mile to make that one) of mainstream media. It has reached the point where, excuse my language, bow tie wearing douches pretend to participate in actual reporting, yet are so confused between the theatrics of comedy and the theatrics of journalism, no one can level the conversational playing field and explain the difference.

So, this is all my post so I can skip it in class tomorrow so we can have a real discussion. What do you guys think is the difference between comedic ethics and journalistic ethics? Where does that distinction fall apart? And how can we, the public, put it back together in some semi-comprehensible, useful sort of way?

Shhhh

2008-11-27T03:44:00.001-05:00

You didn't get this from me.

Propaganda

2008-11-24T20:41:00.003-05:00

Propaganda that makes a logical argument must be either intellectually dishonest, unethical, or deceptive.

I first have to concede that no argument is exclusively logical. Even pure logic carries some gravitas that can be classified as ethos to an extent. So, let's say that propaganda, which at its core has a logical sequence of rational thoughts that are meant to convey a coherent message, must distort that sequence in either an unethical or dishonest way.

A distortion can occur by ignoring vital pieces of evidence, refusing to acknowledge objections, ignorantly or deliberately misquoting (citing) evidence, etc.

A distortion can also occur if the logical sequence is subverted by another medium. For example, if one runs images counter to the spoken or text based argument.

I must grant that my argument is predicated on a narrower definition of the word propaganda. If propaganda can be information disseminated to support or subvert an establishment, then it need not be, at its core, deceptive. If, in a situation of moral absolutes, one party, the one in the right, ran a propaganda campaign to subvert the establishment of the party that was in the wrong, then propaganda can exist without deception.

Yet, those days where moral absolutes occur are few and far between. Most problems are too big, too complex for black and white interpretations. It is in those issues that logos based propaganda must be deceptive.

When narratives go bad

2008-11-24T02:14:00.003-05:00

Bill O'Reilly is known for his loud if not logical opinions. His show is one of the most popular on television, and certainly a key piece of the Fox News fair and balanced narrative.

For me, Keith Olberman here does what Outfoxed should have. I think this is a well worth watching piece of media criticism.

What makes this whole thing so interesting is not Bill O'Reilly's adherence to his own skewed perspective. After all, we can certainly imagine how hard it is for an aging dog to change his one trick. What is most interesting is that Foxnews edited the transcript.

This means a bunch of different, startling things. 1. Foxnews sees itself as not a reader or reporter of reality first. It is first a shaper of reality. When reality does not conform to the fair and balanced narrative that it proclaims at the top of every hour, it is reality that must be wrong. 2. Foxnews believed that retaining Mr. O'Reilly's truth was paramount to its mission. Perhaps, though, it is not an adherence to truth or even shaping reality that drove Fox to edit the transcript. Perhaps it is the ratings that the Factor brings in. 3. Foxnews must have no, and by no I mean no, respect for its audience.

So, what drives this media outlet. Perhaps it is ratings. Perhaps it is hubris. One thing we know for sure is that it is certainly not journalistic ethics.

Yet, is it fair to only accuse foxnews of such a moral lapse? In the Washington Monthly's "the other war room" by Joshua Green, I think it is possible to extend moral lapses to the current administration as well. Green argues that the Bush administration determines policy based on principles, a perfectly legitimate opinion about the nature of authority in a democratic system of governance, yet it then uses polls to shape the language with which those policies are sold. In other words, the Bush administration has consciously skewed perspectives in order to sell their narratives that often do not conform to reality.

Once again. Money? Hubris? One thing we know for sure is that it is certainly not what Lincoln had in mind when he wrote "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

McCain Supporters

2008-11-19T16:03:00.003-05:00

Interesting little tid bit right here. The People's Press surveyed McCain's supporters reaction to the election. Of the 611 voters surveyed 30 said they were not surprised by the result, while 21 said they were. How can that be?

Most of those who were not surprised must have followed the polling data which had McCain down a lot on the eve of the election. How come people were surprised?

Also,

Rassmussen reports that "among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage."

Playing plausible association now. Does this have anything to do with the mistrust of data and mistrust of the "mainstream liberal media" by some rural voters?

Great Demographic Data

2008-11-19T15:53:00.002-05:00

The census bureau has a new feature on its cite. Check it out for all of the data goodness one could ever need.

Gupper Peas

2008-11-19T15:44:00.004-05:00

The south seems like it will begin signaling for a more conservative republican party. The latest Pew research poll shows that

"Roughly two-thirds (68%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters identify themselves as conservative, and three-quarters of these voters think the party should turn further to the right. While a majority of the moderates and liberals within the party advocate a centrist approach, they make up fewer than a third (31%) of Republican voters overall."

The Pew polls also found that "Yet the exit poll revealed a sizable gap in support for Obama between whites in the South and those living in other parts of the country. Just 31% of southern whites voted for Obama, while he garnered the support of about half of white voters living in other regions."

It seems that the 'he who holds the south will sour' idiom will remain true.

Why not?

2008-11-18T23:13:00.001-05:00

I'll post more substantially later, but how could I resist the opportunity to post a video of my dad as a expert/pundit on CNN.

Enjoy.

For those who are interested.

2008-11-17T14:18:00.002-05:00

THE WAR ROOM

Link 5

Link 6

Link 7

Link 8

Link 9

Transparenting (to make transparent)

2008-11-16T14:49:00.001-05:00

Perhaps one of the most important roles that the fourth estate has is transparenting government. Government, at least this one, was founded on the principle of "of the people, by the people, and for the people," this sort of motto can only apply if the people have the information. If the close door of governmental meetings has a transparent plane of glass through which we can peek inside.

All the President's Men is more than just a mediation on the opaquity of government, it is a dramatization of the vitality that transparence must have in government.

Much of what we've done over the past few weeks has been research about sound journalistic methodologies and ethical journalistic practices. We've outlined the models of journalism, we've debated their merits. But, what is the best that journalism can do?

All of what we've done takes us back to Alexis de Tocqueville's conception of the fourth estate.

A more serious question, though, arrises from Tocqueville's argument. Today's discourse is fragmented, whether newspapers are doing a good job or not is immaterial to their loss of stature. With multiple media outlets competing for multiple audiences, Tocqueville's sense that newspaper creates and mobilizes community seems to fade.

Does it?

Elongated Discourse and Polling Data Part II

2008-11-16T14:31:00.001-05:00

Robert Bellah argues that as the middle class developed, a more specific discourse, field particular jargon, developed as well. This new language was predicated not on positionality, but on a set of abstract principles or guides, e.g. happiness, love, hate, etc. Middle class rhetoric, in turn, shifted from "because you are my son" to "this would make me happy."

The shrinking middle class, as well all know, was perhaps the most contested demographic in this election cycle. According to the CNN exit polls, among those making 50,000 to 75,000 49% swung to McCain and 48% swung toward Obama. That income bracket was also the largest demographic to vote holding a 21% share of total voters.

If you listen to the speeches of the last three days of the campaign, McCain ceases associative argumentation, as one expect in a race for the middle class, following this logic. McCain does not associate Obama with Ayers or Wright. He does not associate him with Terrorists, or Blacks, or Socialist (Palin continues, but let's deal with McCain for now). He appeals to abstract principles. Experience vs. Inexperience. Change vs. Risk.

Obama though stuck with associative rhetoric, seemingly contrary to this logic. 90%. 90%. 90%. Bush = McCain.

The truth though is that this hard and fast distinction of rhetoric fails to account for non-exclusivity of rhetoric in general. But perhaps more important, is that positional rhetoric was a key piece of Obama's campaign. And if you look at how he performed among the poor, uneducated, and the very well educated and very rich, Bellah's pattern holds. Obama won those who make less than 50,000 a year 60% to 38%. And although Obama and McCain split those who make over 50,000 per year 49% to 49%. Those who make more than 200,000 dollars a year went to Obama 52% to 46%.

McCain, who's campaign was running two major narratives (experience and risk) as opposed to Obama's one (change), won on the abstract principled one of "experience," albeit not by much. And soundly lost on positional rhetoric of association, which Obama's one narrative dominated.

Interestingly, when McCain was polling slightly ahead of Obama right after the RNC bump, his speeches were all about his service and his experience. He had, in effect, widen the middle class with guided rhetoric. But once Rick Davis decided to go after Obama with associative rhetoric, around October 7th, the campaign basically ended, because they had moved the social moorings of the conversation onto a battlefield that Obama had already been entrenched in.

As an aside, ironically, Obama, the self proclaimed champion of the middle class, narrowed the demographic with his positional rhetoric. Funny, huh?

Slate and the voting crisis

2008-11-04T20:07:00.001-05:00

article here.

Problems in VA

2008-11-04T08:09:00.001-05:00

Both Richmond and Fairfax have been experiences technical difficulties this morning. These are counties that Obama is counting on to carry VA for him.

Nudity and Politics

2008-11-03T19:57:00.002-05:00

Maybe that should be a class at YU.

In related news, this article.

Comedy/Election Central

2008-11-02T10:52:00.001-05:00

FYI, Jon Stewart is covering the returns this Tuesday night with Colbert as a guest anchor.

Statistically speaking

2008-11-02T00:15:00.002-04:00

We all know, by now, that we do a horrible job at counting votes. Who even knows if any of the presidents we have ever elected have ever actually won?

So, up at my grandparents home this weekend, I asked my grandfather statistically how could we best count.

Here were his thoughts:

Take a sample of 3,000 to 4,000 Americans, randomly selected on November 4th. We make sure every single one of them vote.

We will come out with an answer that has a margin of error less than 1%.

I'll get the exact math on this if anyone really wants to know.

My two favorite Political Ads of All time

2008-10-29T16:10:00.002-04:00

Since we're sharing.

The first is an obvious rif off the "who would you rather have a beer with" question, which played a seemingly vital role in some of Bush's campaign. It does two things though, that, I think, make it a great add. It is an OBVIOUS rif, meaning that the add itself draws attention to the silly reality of the question. This is the same sort of satire of the system stewart and colbert perform every night. Also, it offers a compellingly fresh answer - the amputee.

This has some drawbacks, since he might forever been known as "the midget with the bottle opener arm" but if the point of a political ad is to be memorable as opposed to substantive, then this does a great job.

Counting in the first place

2008-10-27T13:20:00.002-04:00

One of the things that stood out from "Recount" was its unstated assumption that not every vote is counted. The question that arrises from that is a major aspect of the film - is the election process ever accurate?

We've all heard the Chicagoan voter mantra "vote early and often." Many of us, myself included, take that phrase as a sort of dry, cynical idiom, not as policy. Yet, is there some sort of truth to it? Not that there is voter fraud (which I'm sure there is), but is the system even remotely close to accurate?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is not accurate. Then what? There are a few different ways we can begin framing this sort of question, but all of them center around one simple question - do you care? Do we care if the right person is elected? Or do we care that we think the right person is elected?

That last question is why many of us turn our brains off when we start thinking about the accuracy of voting. It's a hard thing to swallow. It's so much easier to believe in an accurate system. The existential feeling that arrives with that thought is a hard thing to shake. "Recount" itself arrives at the same sort of existential end.

"Klain (Spacey): So, did the best man win then?

Baker (Wilkinson): You bet.

Klain: You sure about that?

Baker: As sure as you are about your man."

Yet, remember our assumption.

"Recont" leaves us with that sort of cliffhanger end, as did the 2000 election. Is the right person in office?

You caught me though, I'm assuming that there is an objective reality at the end of this thing. That there is a clear winner and that there is a right person. Far from it, it seems.

Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in

Florida Presidential Election 2000

Review Method Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

The multitude of interpretations seems to make Lynne Chenney's claim that there is an "externally verifiable truth" seem a bit erroneous. Externally verifiable truth is something that, even if you want to believe exists, is never the truth we, as a society, come to. External truth, by its definition, exists outside of the realm of interpretation, and we, as a society, interpret everything. We interpret with our eyes, ears, noses, brains, etc. The event could by the exact same (see hostile media bias article from the beginning of the term), yet it is perceived differently. So, even if you claim that a perfect truth, an externally verifiable truth exists, it is forever unattainable.

If anything, it seems, our society isn't looking for the truth. We're looking for truth that we can be comfortable with.

Forgive the Interruption

2008-10-25T20:33:00.002-04:00

I think that this is probably an important video for all of us to watch.

Biden was asked some, um, interesting questions by a News anchor. Here's the video which is getting harder and harder to find.

EDIT***

In an uncomfortable moment, two distinctly different impressions of reality, met on live TV. Often, when we have a conversation there is a certain set standard of assumptions that our conversation rests upon. There are things taken for granted, idioms all party's are familiar with, etc.

Yet, every once in awhile, a conversation occurs where the parties aren't even in the same ballpark. The anchor was asking a serious question. The quote from Marx, taken out of context, represents a feeling/concern held by many (I can't find a poll, but it seems to be forming into a master narrative of sorts) that Obama is for a redistribution of wealth.

Most people, though, don't understand that taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Marx was referring to his system in Das Kapital which, in effect, would have redistributed all wealth, "each according to his own." Yet, Obama wants to redistribute some of the wealth. He is never going to raise taxes on anyone to 100%.

Yet, Biden missed that point. Worse, he laughed off a concern felt by many people. His answer, too, was off the mark. Biden claimed that Obama wants to give a chance to the middle class, "honest, hard working Americans." He never took the time to explain how that is not Marxism.

So, what you had were two different monologues going in the form of an interview.

Linguistic Theory and Election '08 (part I)

2008-10-24T13:15:00.017-04:00

Elaborated Code and Condensed Code in Campaign Rhetoric

Part I - Condensed Code and the Polar Classes

In an article titled "The History of Habit" , Robert Bellah (1), a social theorist who, I think, still works at UC Berkeley, describes two methods of linguistic indoctrination, or, perhaps a more nicer way of saying it, acculturation.

A word about this post before we dive in. For the purposes of my argument, I want to ask my reader to suspend his or her value judgements. This is not an argument about which code is better, more moral, etc. This is not about whether one connivingly plays to a certain audience or not. That is for you to decide and it is up for you to draw your own conclusions from this post. I'm wielding this post as a kind of garden hoe. I want to cull back some of the ideas we have had about this campaign's rhetoric and dig fruitful tracks for further discussions. What you decide to plant is up to you.

The two models Bellah uses are in this post's subtitle: elaborated code and condensed code. Now, as he points out, these two codes are hardly mutually exclusive, but the prevalence of one in a single discourse says a lot about the speaker and the speaker's idea of an audience.

He suggests that condensed speech code is one that originates from the positionality of members in a family. For example, if you remember when your mother told you to do something because "she said so," she was employing condensed code, specifically in a hierarchical way. Other examples are: "Because you're a boy," "Because you're a child," etc.

In his description of the elaborated code, Bellah states that reasons are given, like "daddy will be pleased if you do that" or "you will get hurt if you do that" etc. The reasons though are not positional reasons like the condensed code, they are reasons that rely on the existence of "abstract principles" and "systems of feeling."

Both the elaborated code and the condensed code are more than fundamental forms of rhetoric. They are the assumptions on which rhetoric is founded upon. If I argue, for example, that I am the best possible choice for president of the United States because "I pledge to you that if [I] am elected, you will have a friend and advoc ate in the White House." The sort of argument is predicated on the condensed code. My position as your friend qualifies me

for service in the White House.

Bellah seems to find the condensed code used more often among two different groups of people: those with fewer words in their vocabulary (the less educated), and those who value positionality (the aristocratic) - the polar classes.

It is essential to realize that the elaborated code is a product of the division of labour. The more highly differentiated the social system, the more specialized the decision-making roles - then the more pressure for explicit channels of communication concerning a wide range of policies and their consequences. The demands of the industrial system are pressing hard now upon education to produce more and more verbally articulate people who will be promoted to entrepreneurial roles. By inference the condensed code will be found where these pressures are weakest [that is to say, among people whose jobs are both routine and require little verbal facility].

So, any rhetorical appeal to those audiences should exhibit some form of condensed code.

When AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka gave his impassioned speech in support of Barack Obama at the USW (steelworkers) convention in Nevada in July, he invoked many arguments in support of Obama while operating in condensed rhetoric.

But, at the end of the day, what people are going to need to hear is that when it comes to protecting jobs,

when it comes to protecting pensions,

when it comes to health care, child care, pay equity for women, Social Security, Medicare, seeing to it that people can afford to go to college and buy a home -- and restoring the right to collective bargaining -- Barack Obama has always, always been on our side.

This is one of a few examples in that speech. The fact that Obama's is with us, he positions himself with us, qualifies him for service in the White House.

Part II - Elaborated Code and the Middle Class

1 Thank you to my girlfriend's mother, Dr. Ellen LeVee, for pointing me in the direction of this essay.

Fun Times with the GOP

2008-10-23T09:10:00.002-04:00

"Why I'm a Republican"

Alamogordo Daily News
Article Launched: 10/21/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

I read in today's paper what a woman wrote explaining why she's a Democrat. Let me tell you why I'm not. I'm a Republican because:

I believe in a sovereign God who sometimes gives us what we deserve.

I believe Muslims are our enemies.

I believe in life. A baby is not just a fetus, but a living being no matter where it resides.

I believe there is a good reason for the death penalty.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, for the government and for us.

I believe the government is way too big and rife with greed and corruption.

I believe in the truth. People believe lies because it's much easier than finding the truth.

I believe in personal responsibility. That includes spanking your children.

I believe American women should raise their own children and American men should be men enough to pay for children they've produced.

I believe a man and woman make marriage. Period.

I believe in America first and foremost and we ought to take care of our own people, our own land, and illegal aliens should go home.

I believe in guns and knowing how to use them properly.

I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win.

I believe in lower taxes. I know how to spend money better than Congress any day

I believe in voter ID.

I believe there is a moderate and a socialist in this election. I agree with a two-party system, but Obama isn't a messiah or a democrat.

He's a Muslim socialist.

Marcia Stirman, Alamogordo

Marcia Stirman is the chairwoman of an Otero County (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Republican women's group. (If anyone has a link to "Why I'm a Democrat" please send it my way).

Election Eve

2008-10-20T18:29:00.002-04:00

Dr. Pimpare, here are our demands:

Use of Morgenstern Lounge November 4th

One TV on CSPAN

One TV on Fox News

One TV on MSNBC

Catered by whatever you can get us that is not fast food or generic Jewish food.

And, you can tell them someone will cover the event in the Commentator (PR) or they can actually send someone from PR.

Exit Polling

2008-10-19T16:07:00.001-04:00

"EXCLUSIVE: *I've learned that the exit polling showed that among W. filmgoers, 89% disapprove of Bush. In addition, 78% are voting for Obama, 6% are voting for McCain, and 6% don't know. Moviergoers were 52%/48% male vs female. And a whopping 47% were over age 40. The audience was overwhelmingly liberal at 55%, followed by moderates at 31%, conservatives at 10%, and those who don't care about politics 5%. The audience was primarily white at 66%, with African Americans at 10% and all other ethnic groups less than 10%. Most attended because of the prospect of making fun of Bush (42%), or because of Oliver Stone as director (41%), or because the preview looked good (39%), or because of the prospect of humor (33%). In terms of expectations, only 27% felt the movie was better than expected, with 38% feeling it was not as good as expected (this was consistent across all groups, especially liberals), and 35% felt it was as good as expected. Those who disapprove of Bush felt very strongly that the movie was not as good as expected.*"

Cute, huh?

Mob Mentality

2008-10-11T21:45:00.006-04:00

In a recent article, Slate magazine argued that:

"At a normal campaign rally, it's the candidate who tries to whip the crowd into a frenzy. At John McCain's town hall in Waukesha, Wis., Thursday, it was the other way around. "I'm mad, and I'm really mad," said one man who'd been called on to ask a question. "It's not the economy. It's the socialist taking over our country." McCain started to respond, and the man shot back sternly. "Let me finish please. When you have an Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we've got to have our head examined. It's time that you two who are representing us, and we are mad."

It seems as though John McCain has forgotten the first rule of an instigator - you don't control the mob, the mob controls you. As his campaign's negativity has increased (see here), his crowds have started to more or less become their own master.

Now, the supporters of McCain are making headlines for yelling things such as "terrorist" and "off with his head" about Obama. We have some decent polling data on the negative effects of McCain's negative add campaign in recent months. Yet, what might be really interesting is whether or not his supporters have been turning people off.

This is not a question based on any evidence as of yet - but who wants to be associated with that sort of crowd?

The Best Damn Debate Coverage Ever

2008-10-07T23:25:00.005-04:00

I watched the debate on CNN, enjoying both the text of the question on the screen and the polling of independent voters in ohio streaming beneath.

After having sat through more than 40 minutes of AC 360, a number of consensuses have emerged among the panel of independents, republicans, and democrats. Obama clearly portrayed himself as a leader, as leaderly as John McCain. McCain was condescending towards Obama. Obama was, for the most part, clear with his answers. Independents loved ("liked more" Obama 65%, McCain 42%) Obama. Now, as most of election coverage is, much of the AC 360 time has been spent on the race, the versus.

Yet, what has been incredibly interesting is the critics (pundits) parsing of Obama's answer. His answers were clear, yet thoughtful and nuanced. And the pundits are treating them with care, and with, by gosh I'm gonna say it, thought. Obama's rhetoric has slightly changed the pundit discourse.

When Obama talked about the invasion of Pakistan, for example. The debate in the pundit sphere was not a superficial one. It was one of specific diction, "what does Obama mean when he says "unwilling" or "unable" about the pakistani government." And, in some of the clarifications of the point as well, "Obama never said he would invade pakistan." These comments were across party lines.

One of the things we mentioned last class, based mostly on Leighley, was this simple truism of media - the items, ideas, and policies that can be easily reduced to polar dynamics. Yet, just structurally speaking, the way the media reduces those things to polar opposites is through diction, through rhetoric. I published about the word "risky" recently. Words and phrases like welfare state, tax cut, bailout, etc. all carry partisan weights and preconceived opinions.

Obama's words were not built solely around those heavy words (he wasn't completely innocent). His answer on Pakistan was readily indicative of this. (By the way, I've included a picture of Pakistan to visually arrest the situation, also because its a pretty good graphic).

"Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

When Obama's raw, uncliched language forces the media to cover nuance, that means something.

Alas though, they are back on Palin.

Palau Primaries

2008-10-06T16:55:00.001-04:00

Palau presidential candidate Elias Camsek Chin and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. Alan Seid, came in first in this week’s presidential primary by posting strong results in heavily populated Koror State and the central Babeldaob district.
Chin and Seid will face the team of attorney Johnson Toribiong and Delegate Kerai Mariur, the second highest primary vote getters, in the Nov. 4 general election.

Rest of article here.

Game Time

2008-10-06T15:51:00.001-04:00

Daniel,

My sn is tanw87. Where do you want me?

Dr. W. W. Herenton

2008-10-06T01:57:00.002-04:00

Dr. Herenton is a graduate of Le Moyne-Owen College in South Memphis, and the University of Memphis. He received his doctorate in education at Southern Illinois University, and is also a recipient of two honorary doctorates from Rhodes College and Christian Brothers University. He has four children, the youngest of which was born in late 2004 to a local waitress.

He is the first African-American to be elected mayor of Memphis. He won his first term by defeating incumbent mayor Richard Hackett in 1991 by a mere 146 votes. Prior to serving as mayor, Herenton was the superintendent of Memphis City Schools for twelve years. In his State of the City address on January 1, 2006, Herenton announced his intention to run for a fifth term in 2007 and refused to debate his challengers during the campaign.

He was elected to his fifth term in office on October 4, 2007, thus making him the first Memphis mayor to be elected to five terms of office. Despite his win, Herenton garnered only 42% of the popular vote on the October 4, 2007 election. Nonetheless, run-offs for Memphis city-wide elections have been banned by court order since 1991, on the premise that the intent of run-offs was to give white candidates an advantage. Indeed, Herenton also scored his initial 1991 victory as well as his 1999 re-election with less than majority support (thank you wikipedia).

The City of Memphis has a total population of roughly 680,000.

The State of Alaska has roughly the same.

Great Article

2008-10-05T16:41:00.000-04:00

Good read on Obama and rural VA at the LAtimes.

Unsung

2008-10-05T15:44:00.003-04:00

Much of the media criticism we've been performing over the past few weeks has centered around the master narratives that seem to guide this election. Obama's inexperience. McCain's age. Palin's inexperience. Biden's tenure. As Stewart pointed out on Cross Fire, major media coverage seems to perpetuate these narratives. For the most part the headlines have all been those few aforementioned words restated in countless ways complimented by evolving evidence and some polling data.

Too infrequently have we seen the media harken back to the subversive fourth estate of, say, Woodward's Washington Post. Nor have we seen much in the way of thoughtfully nuanced analysis (outside of the very occasional Obama lecture). The question becomes why? Why does the media feed the master narratives with hours of coverage? What happened to thoughtful journalism? And, in the same vain, is there any left?

Well, to take the last question first, I'd point to a recent Harper's article titled "Obama's Jews" by Bernard Avishai (You can't get the full article at the site without a subscription. I'll photocopy it for class if anyone is interested). Now, Harper's is probably not mainstream media by majority opinion, however its circulation is around 220,000 . It is the second oldest circulating periodical in the states. And I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of those 220,000 vote and/or contribute financially to campaigns, although I have no evidence.

Avishai's article is a tight, nuanced diagnoses of modern American Jews and their organizations. I wont summarize the article here, but I will say that he uses Obama as a spotlight of sorts, to expose the gaping rift between the majority opinion among Jews (he characterizes it as the "we like SNL's Liberman more than Liberman" attitude) and the opinion of the neo conservative Jewish Leadership.

One of the things though that Avishai does surprisingly well is that he subverts the master narratives using simple, available evidence. For example, he breaks down the Jewish voting block by demographics and by issues. He highlights that Jews don't vote based on the zionistic attitudes of the candidates - an issue which we all noticed during the VP debates. He points out that the biggest issue for Jews is healthcare, even though 40% of American Jews make over 150,000$ a year. And nearly 80% don't worry about healthcare on a regular basis.

This sort of journalism is unsung, to angle back though, why isn't it the norm? Well, the answer is nuanced, unsurprisingly. The Washington Post still wins Pulitzer Prizes for good journalism. It's 2008 story on the mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital is a good example of this. Yet, it seems, that the problem lies with television more than with print.

As for the final question I posed (why does the media feed the master narrative), I'd like to submit one observation that I think captures the issue.

It's all in the diction.

The McCain campaign has been labeling Obama as "risky" for months now. So when the NBC/Wall Street Journal ran a poll about which candidate seemed more risky, it was, unsurprisingly, Obama by 16 points, validating riskiness as a storyline. As well as placing the word risk into the public discourse with evidence, misrepresenting the origins of the word.

Imagine, if they had polled which candidate was more likely to start a war?

Shady Aftermath

2008-10-03T01:31:00.003-04:00

The pundantic (oh yeah, that's right) fallout of that debate is one of the weirdest things I've ever witnessed.

In the Blue Corner:

Polling Data from Mediacurves.

Other polls.

And an article from the Huffington Post.

Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list of sources, it does, i think, a good job at representing the majority opinion of those who believe Biden won.

In the Red Corner:

AOL poll and news.

The National Review

and Drudge's poll.

This is also coupled with the ancedotal evidence of my viewing party (about 20 white male and female independent voters).

Ditto for Palin.

There has been a lot of stuff flying in the past few hours since the debate, however at least one thing, I think, is clear.

No one votes for vp and everyone now remembers this.

Gov Palin has undoubtedly energized the conservative base, while even attracting a few independent white women voters. Her place in the campaign could have been a game changer, and in many ways it did a lot to shift the overarching narrative of the past few weeks media cycle. However, the focus of this debate, but its very definition, shifted the tunnel vision of the American attention span squarely onto McCain and Obama.

That said though, I feel it would be disingenuous not to mention the visceral displeasure I felt when Gov. Palin obviously dodged questions. And that, in my mind, makes this whole aftermath even weirder. After looking at some of the conservative opinion and hearing my own audience, I couldn't help but believe that we had watched a different debate.

I don't think that this was hostile media bias, or even party loyalty. There was something deeper afoot. There is almost a surreal sense of connection that many have with Gov Palin that transcends any form of rhetoric I can imagine. It is almost a subliminal craving. I'm honestly not quite sure how to begin parsing it, so here's my best shot.

The Kindergarden line got a lot of smiles. It was a feel good moment, reminding us of both her small town heritage and the value our nation places on democracy. There was something more though in her line about "extra credit" that I found telling. Why is it extra credit to follow a presidential campaign? Sure, I know she was talking about pre-schoolers, but hear me out for a second. Why?

I think this line taps deeply into the psyche of the regular, Joe Six Pack, American bystander. Average investment and interest in a presidential campaign is pretty darn low. We've seen how roughly 1/5 to 2/5 voters, vote for a candidate who is either contrary to their beliefs or branded with their favorite color. Yet, even then in 2004, the highest ever turnout, only produced about 120 million voters. That's a little more than 1/3 of the country.

Gov. Palin's answers were cliched, bumper sticker swan songs, when they were coherent. But that unengaged, yet compassion and smart mouthed tone, is darn close to the American public's own unengaged, almost anti-interest in the affairs of state.

I hate to burst the bubble of this course, maybe I've become too cynical and cranky, but people just don't really care that much who leads them. And my vote counts as much as theirs does. Yet, I see it as my civic duty, for many though, we must remember, it is merely extra credit.

LIVE BLOG

2008-10-02T20:59:00.023-04:00

It is now 8:59 and I'm setting up to watch the VP debate on my local fox station. I'm planning on writing about the pundits and the critics.

Already Shep Smith has spent about 20 seconds criticizing Palin and over 2 min on Biden and Iffel. Fair and balanced... here we go!

At least Gwen didn't say "toin coss" like Lauer did.

Not leading with the woman. Learning from Hillary.

Oh man...

Biden's answered are focused so far. He lists, he ticks off points, and he points to his experience. Palin seems unfocused and her answers are more cliched than specific.

Good pick up by Iffel, about the vp question.

This might be a good strategy for Palin. It's hard to rebut answers that don't make that much sense.

I'm having a lot of trouble following Palin. Her sentences have no transitions. I'm going to have to quit the live blogging while listening to her.

That was one of the most honest exchanges I've seen about trickle down economics vs. redistribution of wealth.

Here's some live polling data.

Thanks Pop Culture Critic.

My original observations have seem to hold up so far.

Now it's mortgage crisis vs credit crisis.

The moderator is moving the questions toward Palin's line of thought.

Palin's working hard to inflate domestic energy to exclusively include oil.

Woah, Palin bringing out her rape kits.

It appears Palin is pro civil unions. Someone should tell McCain.

That's a hard line. Obama Biden - the White Flag of Surrender (expect to see that ad soon).

She's got the pronunciation of nuclear down pat.

She moved away from the administration Israel thing real fast.

Richard Luger is getting a lot of press right now.

I'll have more on the debate later.

Quick Read

2008-10-02T02:36:00.002-04:00

I found this interesting. I'm drafting a response to his points now, in light of our reading for Monday. Any thoughts beforehand though?

The Sorkin Effect

2008-09-24T02:08:00.004-04:00

Obama's campaign is based on a platform of change, bipartisan politics, and hope. No, that's not an agreement. That's merely the image his campaign has been trying to project for the past few months. Another projection though, another image, another aspect of his campaign is what I'll call the ICON. Obama as an icon, a symbol that stands in the midst of history, is just as big of a part of his campaign as the word change is.

Eye candy.

more...

In a hilarious turn of events, article.

Palau News

2008-09-23T02:24:00.002-04:00

I just checked an electoral calendar. And it turns out that Palau is holding its presidential election on November 4th. Embarrassingly ignorant of the Palau electoral process, the plight of the Palauen people, and even the location of Palau on a map, I've decided to give some of my attention.

The Republic of Palau is an island nation in the South Pacific. If someone were to toss you out of a plane roughly half way between your flight from Tokoyo to Sidney you might hit Palau with the perfect wind sheer. It gained its independence in 1994, when it established a compact of free association with the US and entered the UN.

Here's a quick list of the Palau political system. Should be interesting, huh?

Tiptoeing Through The Tulips

2008-09-22T10:14:00.002-04:00

Media coverage of the political fight about the market is surprisingly fair. Every article I've read so far, from CNN to Intl Herald Tribune to Foxnews (when was the last time we saw the word "deliberative" in a Foxnews article?), seems to tiptoe through the issue. Careful not to blame Republicans for the crisis. Careful not to point out the Democrats holding things up in Congress.

I'd like to submit that this is because the market is no longer a bi-partisan issue. And, when there is no big VS in the picture, the media covers something fair.

The current issue with the market is how much it should be regulated. NOT, whether it should be regulated at all! This is a departure from the more common Free Market vs Regulation model we've seen for the past many years.

Also, I think it must be noted that covering finance requires an interest in finance. Therefore, articles on that subject will more than likely be from writers who either aren't as familiar with or aren't as interested in politics.

All in all it makes for refreshingly solid coverage.

SexyDirtyMoney

2008-09-22T10:08:00.003-04:00

I thought you all might find this interesting.

"Everything that you are about to read might be wrong.
Roll Call’s annual attempt to rank the riches of Members of Congress is hampered by one fundamental flaw: It is based on the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms, which are extraordinarily unreliable sources of information.

The disclosure rules allow Members to report assets in broad categories, so there is no way to tell the difference between a $20 million investment and a $5 million investment. The top category on the Members’ forms is “over $50 million,” so it is impossible to accurately account for anything worth more than that — like a professional sports team, for example. There is also a gaping loophole for assets owned by the Members’ spouse or dependent children; anything worth more than $1 million in value can be reported as “over $1 million.” There is no way to tell whether that is $1.2 million or $1.2 billion."

Rest of Article and List of 50 Richest members of Congress.

Air Wars Chapters 1-5 Schema

2008-09-22T09:48:00.003-04:00

Howdy all,
The real usefulness of this book is that it really is an extended glossary of sorts, that is organized into lists and examples. Below, I've broken down the lists of each chapter, as I kind of distilled summary. This is by no means exhaustive, it is just what I took away from it.

Chapter 1

Stereotypers Visual Images

Association Visual Text

Demonization Music and Sounds

Code Words Color

Editing

Audio Voice Over (Narrator)

Hard Money

Soft Money (Buckley v. Valeo)

Phantom Ads

Attack Ads

Chapter 2

Strategies of Ad Buying

1. How many issues?

2. When (if) air attack ads?

3. How often to broadcast ad(s)?

4. How to mix local and national ad buys?

Strategic Interactions with Opponents, - or +

Chapter 3

The Power of the Portrait

Prominent Ads (not ness. in times run, but in effect)

Action Statements The Campaign Stage

Policy Mentions

Personality Based

Social Issues

International Relations

Internet Ads & Sites

Negative Ads and Backlash

Chapter 4

Horse-race Coverage

The more - ads the more horse-race coverage

Ad Watches

Ads with footnotes

Oversight tools

Chapter 5

Favorability

Electability

Familiarity

How ads impact voters

Outfoxed: The Sad State of Media Criticism

2008-09-14T23:54:00.000-04:00

I think we can all agree that those who are proponents of objectivity in journalism are either ignorant of most modern journalistic ethical literature or disingenuous.

I think we can all agree that the FOX news channel is biased. It is biased, in the sense of the above, but also in the sense of a conscious concentration and manipulation of certain attitudes that shape and frame the news.
All that said, Mike Greenwald, the documentary’s director, undercuts any decent argument he could make by employing some over handed tactics and some sloppy rhetoric.

The experts he employs to add substance and evidence to his claims about Fox news all come from well documented liberal background, men and women who have already spoken out against Fox news, not necessarily from the solid ground of journalistic integrity.

The parade of agenda biased journalists skew their credentials as experts (even if we are to concede that they do in fact know what they are talking about in the first place) as well as subvert any notions of untainted evidence.

The former Fox news employees were also misrepresented. For example, Mr. Du Pre of the West Coast Bureau, who is responsible for some of the most potentially damaging comments, is not really from the West Coast Bureau. He was from the local Los Angeles Bureau and was let go from Fox news for “biased reporting.” So not only does the production create false implications, but also Mr. Du Pre has an incredibly biased agenda against his former employer.

Even the statistics are tainted (yeah, “even” implies that they normally wouldn’t be. And yeah, everyone knows the idiom “there are lies, goddamn lies, and statistics.” I just wanted that conjunction). Yet, they are more than tainted, they are embarrassingly sloppy in their impurity. When presenting the number of people Rupert Murdoch can reach on a daily basis, Greenwald adds each constituent together, ignoring those people who could fall into multiple categories. People who have basic cable can also access the Internet. Those groups are not mutually exclusive, yet Greenwald adds them all up for the largest number possible.

Perhaps the biggest problem though, is his refusal to create a baseline from which to compare Fox news’ journalistic culture to other news outlets. There are no, this is what CNN does, and look how biased Fox news is, points.
The best example of this is the memos from Fox high command that supposedly generate and perpetuate propaganda and bias. Perhaps these memos are biased. I can not, though, as a viewer, know what to think for certain without relevant comparisons.

Yet, even these memos don’t seem biased. And Greenwald over handed attempts to make them appear biased subverts any credibility he has left. My favorite example of this is the memo pertaining to the coverage of Abu Grahb prison. The memo reads something along these lines:

“People are upset over the Abu Grahb prison photos. And they are rightfully so. Today, we’re going to show a US citizen captured and presented to us bound and gagged. Where is the sympathy for this man?” (apprx)

The narrator though skips the second line, as that piece of text fades into the background. Greenwald obviously removes the piece of fairness from the memo. This presentation is about as absurd as asking Mrs. Lincoln how the play was despite the assassination. The removal of a vital piece of text from the narration is in poor taste, but to leave the original memo in is, plainly, stupid and sloppy.

If someone ever brought this script into the writing center, I would have serious concerns as a tutor. As a citizen watching this film, I also have serious concerns, concerns about the state of media criticism.

RIP DFW

2008-09-14T00:05:00.002-04:00

David Foster Wallace has a great article on John McCain's press coverage titled "Up Simba."

That was to make this post relevant. RIP DFW.

Outfoxed

2008-09-12T06:35:00.001-04:00

For those who don't wish to roll out of bed this weekend.

TV-watching is a different animal from Peeping Tourism

2008-09-10T16:59:00.000-04:00

Do media create distance between participant (viewer, reader, etc.) and event? That seems to be the big question of the week, and like all big questions, this one falls perilously short of appropriately addressing the issue. The relationship between media, audience, and event is an incredibly complex dynamic of power, space, and trust (those are not mutually exclusive.).

For those who don’t really have the patience or the desire to read Foucault (not many do), there’s a great little essay by David Foster Wallace (back at you Pop Culture Critic) called E Unibus Pluram (the title's source), which does a decent job of explicating the relationship between media, audience, and event.

For our purposes, though, let’s assume that media is an event itself. Watching TV, going to a film, sitting through a play, those are all events. And that media event imposes itself on our conscious immediately acting as a lens through which we perceive another event. Now, I chose the word lens carefully, because although lens create distance, the sometimes offer clarity. I think that model accurately captures media.

So any absolutist argument, in my opinion, off the bat assumes an agenda. Reading “Easy Citizenship: Television’s Curious Legacy” was like reading a 1940s article bashing the TV as evil. Ad homonym attacks aside, one of Hart’s thesis: “not everything that is good for us is easy,” suffers from a lack of sophistication and a subtle adherence to an agenda – that media is bad.

The Reeher piece does a much better job at representing the complexity that a discussion of this subject must undertake. He views media as neither inherently good nor bad, it is an event, and with all events it carries the connotations and effects it accumulates over time.

The internet, for example, is controlled by the clicking of the individual. Its very structure forces active participation (perhaps unlike television) in the event of surfing. So, activism online is already occurring. To use a Hart word, its structure creates “inertia.”

The Obama campaign has certainly exploited this inertia and turned it into a cash and voter collecting system of unparalleled precedence. They have treated media as a tool, specifically the internet, which can not only access many, many people, but it can also turn them into active users. This is just a reflection. I’m thinking more about this problem for a later, lengthier post.

The Media Under Fire

2008-09-10T16:40:00.002-04:00

And it begins, again.

Obama has had enough.

A Good Ole' Fresh Cup of...

2008-09-07T20:21:00.000-04:00

Interpreting data is risky business. What might seem clear one moment becomes a ghost in the evidence the next. As my grandpa, a professor of statistics at Yale, is fond of saying, “reading data is high wire act between skepticism and conjecture. No models are ever completely accurate, the most we can hope for is that some are useful.”

Perhaps one of the most seductive syllogisms of data is that of parallel direction. If A. is moving in the same direction as B. and they are even in relative acceleration and velocity to each other, I’d like to assume a relationship between the two. There is a certain logic to this. However, upon more detailed scrutinizing, this assumption can often falter.

The mounds of data that both "Election 2006 Online" as well as “The State of the News Media” presented seemed, at least in part, to be governed by the above assumption as well as some others.

It would, of course, be amiss of me not to provide an example. The “Election 2006 Online” states the following:

"The growing importance of the internet in political life is tied at least in part to the spread of broadband connections in American homes. From November 2002 to November 2006, the share of adult Americans with high-speed connections at home grew from 17% to 45%. These “always on” internet connections draw people to online news of any kind, political news included" (ii.).

Just because “always on” internet connections have increased does not mean that those connection “draw people to online news of any kind, political news included.”
In fact, if you were to consider the framing of that logic for a moment, you would find that the sentence implies that the greater accessibility of the internet causes people to seek online news.

Does accessibility draw people to online news sites? My gut says no. How could greater accessibility to the large window that is the internet result in a specific increase to a small sector?

I’m not sure.

But, let’s consider its viability for the moment. The study goes on to examine the influence of broadband and mentions it 42 more times (43 total). And as the evidence mounts, the less plausible the study’s initial claim seems.

"As we documented earlier this year, those who have broadband at home are different news consumers from non-internet users and dial-up users. In this survey, broadband users are just as likely to turn to the internet for news as they are their local newspaper on a typical day. Some 38% of home broadband users get news online on a typical day, the same percentage as home broadband users who read a newspaper on a typical day. For home dial-up users, however, online news is not as much an everyday activity" (4.).

To me, this section undermines the claim of a draw. Since it presents the same suspiciously same percentage for both the usage of newspapers and internet among broadband users. This data tells me that broadband users are just as likely to turn on safari as they are to pick up the times. It also tells me that broadband has the same drawing power as regular old newspapers.

I might be missing something, though, the original claim might be relative to dial up users. If I were to assume that then the claim is absolutely plausible. 27% of broadband users get most of their election news online, while only 13% of dial up users get their news online.

But, the original claim does not, to my powers, imply or state a relationship between broadband or dial up. It claims that, in no absolute terms, broadband attracts more people to news on the internet.

But, now I might have an even bigger problem. The chart on page 8 clearly states that 27% of broadband users receive most of their campaign coverage online. However, in an earlier paragraph, already quoted in this article, the study claimed that “38% of home broadband users get news online on a typical day.”

Now, we could parse the language. That the chart presents information pertaining to solely the campaign, and the paragraph presents data relating solely to news. But, at this point in time, I’m beginning to question the accuracy of the study’s numbers. I want to see how these percents were calculated in the first place. I’d like to know about this organization, etc.

I hope this excerise in close reading gave everyone a healthy cup of skepticism before class on Monday.

Riffing off of Cranky's

2008-09-04T12:49:00.000-04:00

You all might enjoy this too.

" ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked. We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

Rest of the article here.

The Objective Reporter

2008-09-04T01:51:00.000-04:00

Howdy Gents,

I just wanted to clarify and elaborate on my comments in class today. I noticed there was some confusion at the time, so I want to take this opportunity to articulate my position to the best of my ability.

The very word "fact" is a convention. It is a linguistic structure dating back to the Latin factum, which meant something close to "deed" or "event" even with an evil connotation. There is no doubt, though, that today we use the word to demarcate truth,what the reality of any situation was.

In many cases fact is an established result of empirical data and observation. Those facts carry such a large body of proof that in many cases they're truthiness (oh yes) is indisputable - the world is round example, perhaps overused but apt falls into this category.

Yet, for those nuanced and multi-variable events that human narratives so often include, fact, I believe, becomes impossibly subjugated to perspective. But more than that, to claim facts in those cases compresses complex situations into simple, digestible dominoes, that can be aligned in a way that would demonstrate the reality of a certain event.

I believe that these sorts of facts are fallacies. As conventions themselves they represent the agendas of all who participated in the construction and maintenance of the linguistic societal rules. They are the products of the indoctrinated, and thus inseparable from perspective.

Even if we were to remove every variable of the mirror analogy that Leighley suggests appropriately characterize her "objective fact news," the ways in which those facts are presented, structured, organized, and communicated are products of culture and invariably influence their content. The upturned lip of a monotone shatters this theory.

I, though, have no problem with facts. I think that there need to be things that we take for granted in this world. We simply can not process all of the information we take in every day, let alone every week, etc. But to ignore that the word fact represents a social contract of that sort can create major problems.

To maintain that journalist, and news outlets, have an obligation to fact and to truth, is a conjecture that I think is unreasonable and unsound. It is unfair to hold someone responsible for documenting truths beyond human existence. We can not and can never be mirrors.

Even CSPAN positions its camera.

Celebrities and the Media

2008-08-31T21:16:00.001-04:00

To sort of redirect the Lion's Den's take on the Puff Daddy comments, I'd like to provoke some conversation as to the importance of celebrities to politicians and the media. This certainly isn't a new topic, case in point Ronald Regan. However, the idea of celebrity has entered into the political discourse during this campaign maybe more so than most others. Ever since McCain's ad came out (and really before then) celebrity status has been portrayed by many during this election as a negative.

Aside from being economically out of touch (gosh I hate cliches, but here I am using one), the single biggest criticism of celebrities is that they are vapid and don't know much about politics. So, why introduce a celebrity into the political climate in the first place?

Well, an easy answer might be that it all goes back to Pop Culture Critics definition of media bias - whatever sells most. Celebrities are big draws. Anna Nicole's death dominated news coverage for what seemed like eternity as an example. Perhaps, though, celebrities and politicians have a few things in common that transcend simple marketing principals.

Politicians, like celebrities, are sometimes very charismatic. They exude an often toxic blend of confidence and arrogance that the masses seem to eat up. Perhaps no more so than Obama, who's confidence and arrogance have been not only an odd part of his message - audacity - but also a major criticism of his image. This is, of course, on top the weird double narrative his campaign is projective. That his presidency is not about him, it is about us. This inclusion, I think, among other things plays into the second thing that celebrities and politicians have in common.

Voyeurs. Power attracts all sort of strange and odd people. Yet, strange and odd people still have a vote. And in a democracy every person you can attract gives you a better chance. So, it seems only natural that politicians would cling to celebrities. They are well documented attracters of people (read votes).

So celebrities sell papers and attract votes. And although they may know absolutely nothing about the issues, through those two things they seem to serve an increasingly important part of the process.

Bias

2008-08-29T01:41:00.001-04:00

Just a question. I'd love to hear what everybody thinks. Does the media itself have a hostile media bias?

It all fits!

2008-08-29T00:42:00.000-04:00

I'll admit it. I watched MSNBC tonight during the DNC's final few hours. Not because it was my choice, mind you, but because it was the only station some of the gals down at Stern were willing to watch on their 36th street lobby's television. Still though, it was little consolation to me, especially during the Chris Matthews Tirades (yes, that's a proper compound noun. Only his rants have a special flavor, a blend of grown man locker room sweat and teenage girl at Justin Timberlake concert angst).

What I couldn't help but notice, perhaps more than anything, was the constant attempt at placing everything about the evening, be it Gore's speech to Obama's speech, into a simple narrative. According to this simple narrative Obama had to do three things tonight. Appear tough enough to claim the title commander-in-chief. Be specific about what "change" was. And, of course, making judgement more of a factor than experience.

How are these objectives chosen by the media? How do I know that the average voter is concerned about these three things? Well, the average voter is informed by media coverage. And the media, in its attempt to sell, has reduced the race to a competition. The competition, the fight, the battle, the war between Obama and McCain takes center stage. Not the policy.

In this sense, then, the media (please read MSNBC, since that is what I was watching) is guilty of creating gaps in the coverage of the race. Even after Obama's speech, of which 1/3 was devoted to matters of policy, most of the talking points, 5 of the 8 I watched, were devoted to his comments about McCain.

So, these objectives don't come from the Obama campaign. If you visit Obama's website you can learn his opinion on policy. His beliefs and his opinions are perhaps more available than any other candidates' in history. No, these objectives come from a severe lack in media coverage that results from a simplified narrative designed to hype the big VS between the two candidates' names.

Klein hits it out of the park when he writes that "the comment 'let's not make a big election out of small things' was not just a rejoinder to John McCain, but also to the press." The need for a simplified, let's call it bumber sticker narrative, that hypes the conflict between the two candidates was the running theme of the evening.

In the end, perhaps that is what the media really wants. The narratives which they have put forth are not about the candidates. They are not about the candidates positions, policies, or politics. At the end of the day, at least tonight, the media's narrative was about itself.

Smug Alert

2008-08-25T11:26:00.001-04:00

You know you've been given a gift when Foxnews takes its cues from South Park. Check this out.

The Myth of Mainstream Media

2008-08-24T19:31:00.000-04:00

I've been reading quite a few posts lately and all try to point out an agenda or a bias in mainstream media. Now, I pride myself on careful diction and thoughtful discourse, so I couldn't help but take up the mantle of the ready, obvious problem - what is mainstream media?

There is, I think, not that much of a question in its utility. In the blogs, and in most discussions on media, it generally refers to media that is both easily accessible and has a wide audience. But to stick a label on the multitude of news outlets is dangerously unthoughtful, perhaps even analogous with the erroneous claim that Jews control the media.

Instead of getting routed into such a mindset, maybe it would be best to allow for a working assumption. There is no mainstream media. True, it makes discussions more difficult, and perhaps more obscure, however it does not do a disservice to thought.

You see, there are a number of large news outlets, and a number of different mediums, each with (and this is the important part) different audiences and thus different constituents. Perhaps the only governing generalization we can make about media is that it most sell. To echo pop culture critic, the media generally has a bias to whatever sells more papers. To qualify that, however, this is not always true, and with the advent and usage of relatively low costs communication forums (read: the internet) media has fractured into small, niche outlets addressing the attitudes of fewer and fewer groups of people.

Either way there is a complex relationship between media and its audience. Even in the news outlets that try to appeal to a number of different audiences. Foxnews, is perhaps, the best example of this sort of complex dichotomy. It is, after all, a mainstream media outlet, however its attitude is generally different than most other forms of mainstream media. And that, my friends, is where the phrase "mainstream media" breaks down and ceases its usefulness - if it ever had any to begin with.

Little boxes

2008-08-22T04:31:00.000-04:00

Having just finished watching one of McCain's new ads, the one specifically dealing with Obama's Rezko connection (how Obama acquired his house), I couldn't help thinking of a West Wing episode. Bartlet lets a comment slip while on national tv, his challenger responds and is led through a series of humiliating moments. I can't quite remember which episodes it was, but McCain's misstep has allowed him to open one of the less explored aspects of this campaign, which is Obama's connection to Rezko specifically, but also the Chicago political scene in general.

That said, the most intriguing bit of this whole house thing, for my money, is that McCain couldn't remember something. Most media and its critics, Pop Culture Curator for example, are taking this as a labor statement. It certainly is to some extent, but come on. We all know that in order to be president you have to be rich. If you don't know that, well, you've been living under a rock or in West Virginia.

But folks, the oldest candidate in history can not remember how many houses he owns. Why is the media seemingly ignoring this?*

*please link me if you have seen an article or two addressing the subject

Every body should watch this:

2008-08-18T02:04:00.000-04:00

John Stewart on Crossfire

OMG: this is totally relevant

2008-08-05T22:38:00.000-04:00

Both McCain and Obama's camps have responded to Paris' awful yet amusing campaign message.

McCain spokeman Tucker Bounds:

"It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain's "all of the above" approach to America's energy crisis..."

McCain is weirdly participating in validating the same celebrity he used to criticize Obama.

Obama spokesperson, Bill Burton, participates in the same celebrity that McCain accused Obama of though, with his trite valley-girl, paris hilton-esque response "whatever."

This sub-text can be seen as incredibly involved. And it is. It, though, is also simply ridiculous.

testing...

2008-08-05T22:04:00.001-04:00

1.2.3.

Protecting our way of life

2008-07-27T04:55:00.000-04:00

A bit of analysis

A statement like the above (from this source) implies a definitive and quantifiable definition for something - way of life - that most of us, when pressed, acknowledge is constantly changing, evolving, fluctuating.

Let's put aside the obvious - that there are certain features that define "our way of life." (Mr. Davis goes on to name a few in his campaign message from the above source) and that to fully understand that phrase it must be examined in context and parsed accordingly. It, though, is symptomatic of many common politically oriented cliches, phrases that tend to feed into a simplified narrative that this country swallows on a daily basis.

This narrative is amplified by these cliches' complete dominance of the media's discourse. To take an example, a personal favorite, the HEARTLAND OF AMERICA. Without second glance, we know that the phrase denotes the midwestern US. Yet, what makes that America's heartland more than, say, NYC?

Good Media

2008-07-25T11:43:00.001-04:00

Avoiding the question - what is good media? - why is it that the best things are funny now a days?

Satire of Obama.

Ethics in Media?

2008-07-25T11:12:00.001-04:00

Can't be.

Here's a funny (sad) little article about the prayer Obama left in the Western Wall.

Bias?

2008-07-24T22:39:00.000-04:00

Can't be.

Article

Coverage?

2008-07-23T21:16:00.000-04:00

Why do the items that get coverage get coverage? Why do they deserve it? Who picks what gets covered? Etc.

Here's an interesting article that might shed some light on those basic and fundamental questions.

Slap in the Face

2008-07-21T14:31:00.000-04:00

Obama, it seems, has forced presidential hopeful John McCain to play by his rules. Obama, as most of us know, is a fairly decent writer and has recently submitted an article to the nytimes detailing his position on Iraq. The oft accused leftist newspaper has just rejected a rebuttal authored by McCain. While many may scream "liberal bias" and while that certainly might be partly true. After reading McCain's editorial, I don't doubt that he graduated in the 1000 club at the US Naval academy (those outside of the 1000 top students per class [usually class range to about 1200]).

Journalism and the Future

2008-07-21T02:13:00.000-04:00

You journalist buff's in our class might want to check this out. An interesting piece on the future of journalism and the challenges new media faces.

A Fair Fight

2008-07-20T23:56:00.001-04:00

Every article that attempts to address the issue about media coverage of the general election always comes down to the word "fair." What does "fairness" mean in the context of an election? Are elections even supposed to be fair at all?

Here's an article for you, think about those questions while reading it.

Media Coverage

2008-07-17T00:25:00.000-04:00

This was an interesting article. Here's a tidbit from it below.

The imbalance has appeared in various analyses of the news coverage. The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that three newscasts by the traditional networks — which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people — spent 114 minutes covering Obama since June; they spent 48 minutes covering McCain.

Here's the rest of the article.

Video Blog

2008-07-03T13:54:00.000-04:00

While I was in France...

Indulge yourself

2008-07-01T06:30:00.000-04:00

I always thought academic freedom debates were a necessary part of any institution of higher learning. Knock yourself out.

Adding my name to the list

2008-06-13T18:15:00.001-04:00

Critics of Media

AOL strikes again

2008-06-11T18:49:00.001-04:00

I couldn't let this one go. AOL has another article up with a sensationalist, barely true headline "The Clintons' Chilling 'Enemies List'". I hadn't realized AOL news, which bills itself as a competitor of CNN, news.yahoo.com, and other online news portrals, had turned into a tabloid.

Headlines, Headlines, Headlines

2008-06-11T18:31:00.000-04:00

As a former journalist myself, I always find it so interesting just how much you can learn from the connotation, placement, and juxtaposition of a headline. My personal favorite (which I haven't been able to find again) was a headline that read something like "Israeli's criticized for lacking moral high ground" right above "Natalie Portman to do first nude scene." Priceless.

Here's an example from today, in reference to one of Obama's "vetters" on his vp search committee. Personally, I thought James Johnson stuck out like a bad Where's Waldo, a reputed washington insider in a campaign that largely defines itself by not "playing by the rules" so to speak. So, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

But, as with this campaign, there are at least two MAJOR ways to cover (or hide) it. For example, DRUDGEREPORT has this link "Obama's VP advisor resigns" tucked beneath the DRUDGE logo. It opens to an article pretty much devoid of judgement and editorializing.

This stands in direct contrast to AOL news. Which, on its front page, has a massive headline which reads "His Campaign Suffers Setback: Key Obama Aide Resigns." When I first read this, I immediately thought that either Plouffe or Axelrod had resigned, not some token member of the vp nominating committee. The AOL article is infused with editorializing, and is surrounded by polls and maps and charts.

Interesting, huh?

Lectures: Great Expectations for Higher Education

2008-06-11T13:40:00.001-04:00

Here's a great little (ok, longer) lecture I discovered by Dr. Amy Guttman, the President of the University of Pennsylvania. In it she justifies her COMPACT PENN program with statistical data and some great educational philosophy. Her love of education though, is what makes this worth watching.

For those I am about to appropriate...

2008-06-11T12:32:00.000-04:00

"The word in language is half someone else's."

"Language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into the private property of the speaker's intentions, it is populated - overpopulated - with the intentions of others. Expropriating it, forcing it to submit to one's own intentions and accents, is a difficult and complicated process."

Discourse in the Novel, M. Bakhtin.

I'm starting with a quote from Bakhtin, not to show off my pretentious taste in literary critics (can one not have pretentious taste in literary critics) or to establish myself as a well read and informed authority on the discourse of language (the former has already been subverted by my self conscious writing style and the latter should soon become readily apparent), but because it provides, what I think, is an appropriate avenue with which to begin this dialogue.

As I am sure it is with all bloggers, my agendas and ideologies color not only my content (what I plan to put on this site) but also my form (this sometimes annoying self conscious style, where I feel the need to qualify and amend almost every statement with a parenthetical). I believe we are all aware of this, and to hide behind the academic "one" and not embrace the inherent "I," is just plain silly. So, this little first statement is a sort of limited introduction of the "I" that I am assuming for the purposes of this blog. And, in that vain, I hope you don't mind if I take you on a quick tour.

The Inheritors was not going to be the title of this blog. I was going for something like generation y, or echo boom, or some other title that the last generation has so nicely placed us in. I thought that it would be fun to take up the mantle of my demographic while commenting on the lunacy of confining any generation to a single demographic. Alas though, those names were taken.

What was on my mind though was Brian Williams recent speech at the Ohio State University's graduation. In his address he asked the OSU graduates to "fix the country." He apologized on behalf of his generation, and implored us to change the country for the better, likening the graduates to the greatest weapon our country has. Personally, I would've preferred the word resource, human weapons, to me, sounds too much like our answer to suicide bombers. I'm not exactly sure if that's an analogy we should be comfortable with. That aside, the idea of inheriting the problems of the previous generation, and dealing with them, was on the brain.

The Inheritors is also a novel by William Golding, about humans killing off neanderthals. I thought that would add some delicious sorts of implications.

This is sort of coupled with another aspect of this blog's creation. I am enrolled in a Media and Politics course for the Fall semester at my school, which requires that I operate a blog. An interesting assignment to be sure. However, getting straight to the point, in my life time politics has never been as generationally divided as it is now. Obama McCain is shaping up to be a battle between an "out of touch candidate" and an "inexperienced and unprepared one." In other words, the old vs. the young. In my mind, this wont be any more obvious and striking than when McCain and Obama are standing next to each other before their first debate. Vibrant youthful energy and courage, experience, and dedication.

These descriptions fall short of any thing meaningful in the way of characterizations, if anything they are a conscious regurgitation of the media's hype, however this is useful for my purpose since I believe it exposes a main impotence for the creation of this blog, and a theme which you will no doubt see run through many of my posts.

My grandfather (a prof of stats at Yale) is fond of saying that there are two definitions of truth. One is what I know in my head, what is provable, what is empirically verifiable, is truth. The other is what I know in my heart, what I feel, what I believe, is truth. He compartmentalizes these as the post scientific method truth and the pre-scientific method truth.

I would like to humbly submit that truth is not something which is seen through a clear plate of glass, uncovered by formulas or believed with absolute clarity. Truth, you can imagine William Randolph Hearst licking his chops, is rather a fickle thing. And to pin anything down into any one category, label, or demographic to discover its truth does a disservice to the very truth of it. Therefor in order to preserve truth you must be mentally flexible, emotionally adaptable, and, of course, willing to learn new tricks.