The news coming out of New Delhi has been heartbreaking.
On December 16th, a 23-year old woman and a male friend boarded what is described as a luxury bus for the trip home after a movie. What happened next will change the way we think about violence against women forever. I have remained silent because it is too painful.
Silence serves no one.
This is the best thing I have read on the topic.
For Anonymous.
Enough. Enough of this for India. Enough of this for Americans. For women anywhere, enough.
December 31, 2012
December 28, 2012
Guns. Again. More or Less.
Here's where I depart the text. I am a liberal. I am not anti-gun. My mother was a hunter when I was young. Yes, I said "my mother". I don't, however, understand the need for rapid-fire long guns. Simply: if you need a gun that shoots 30 rounds per second, maybe hunting isn't your sport. I understand guns for protection, too. I understand the terror of the idea of being helpless in the face of a violent intruder. But there again, if the first round doesn't hit or deter that intruder, the next 29 rounds probably won't either.
That's where I will stop. Don't worry: I am not going to lend my own voices to those of the masses arguing about guns and gun control and Hitler disarming the citizens of Germany. That last part reminds me of the Godwin's Law and, frankly, it is also patently untrue.
What I want to do here is talk about what guns mean to Americans. This debate is going to rage on and on, long after most of us stop choking back tears at the thought of the losses in Newtown, CT. This debate is going to be the core of "us vs. them" and "blue states vs. red states," likely, until the 2016 election. This fight will be bloody. Why not figure out why? What are we really talking about when we're talking about gun control?
A few months ago, I spent some time learning about Clotaire Rapaille. I was supposed to read one article for my class at Trinity. Before the weekend was over, I'd consumed every page I could find. If you don't know about Rapaille, you should. He's an amazing marketing specialist that has been tinkering with your brain for years. Originally, Rapaille started out in the field of child psychology, specifically working with severely autistic children. What he learned there helped him to figure out that every word you learn has an emotional imprint. You cannot, in fact, learn a word's meaning without the emotion tied to it. That imprint and the ensuing emotional transmitters create the code for our world. The code that develops for all of our language and functioning in this world that is culturally set and hard wired for a lifetime. This code connects at the deepest levels with something Rapaille calls our reptilian brain. It is this part of our thinking, this reptilian brain that is only concerned with two things: survival and reproduction. And the reptilian brain always wins. Always.
Rapaille suggests that the stage of development that occurs right after the reptilian brain is focused on the cortex. The cortex is the "intelligent" part of our brain. It is concerned with numbers, statistics, knowable facts. This is the part of our brain most of us believe we live in. We offer explanations from the cortex, but we make decisions from the reptilian brain. Remember, the reptile always wins.
So what is the code for gun? If you unpack it, just a little bit, it seems like the two sides are not so far apart. They're all talking about survival, but from two different sides. Let's look at how the the gun debate has been progressing.
This is one of the best pro-gun articles that I have read to date. Doug Wyllie, PoliceOn Editor in Chief writes of his daylong seminar with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, foremost authority on human aggression and violence. He says that it is silly for us to not have armed guards or police officers in our school system. Consider:
In a startlingly close counter-argument, we find Nicholas D. Kristof from the New York Times Sunday Review Opinion pages. Kristof also laments the differences between guns in the classroom and any other safety initiative. He says, "American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill." To Kristof, the problem is regulation. He does not think that more guns will solve this problem, saying "Likewise, don’t bother with the argument that if more people carried guns, they would deter shooters or interrupt them. Mass shooters typically kill themselves or are promptly caught, so it’s hard to see what deterrence would be added by having more people pack heat." We need more regulations, says Kristof, and many like him. Safety regulations work, and this is just one more. Regulations will keep us safe from the threat of guns. Gun is MENACE
Imagine if someone said, ‘I want a trained fire professional on site. I want a fire hat, I want a fire uniform, I want a fire badge. But! No fire extinguishers in this building. No fire hoses. The hat, the badge, the uniform — that will keep us safe — but we have no need for fire extinguishers.’ Well, that would be insane. It is equally insane, delusional, legally liable, to say, ‘I want a trained security professional on site. I want a security hat, I want a security uniform, and I want a security badge, but I don’t want a gun.’ It’s not the hat, the uniform, or the badge. It’s the tools in the hands of a trained professional that keeps us safe.Grossman says that if we approach gun violence the way we approach fire safety, with overlapping layers of protection, we will reduce violence in the schools to the same level of fatality that school fires have enjoyed since the 1950s. That means regular drills, single point of entry for classrooms, and - yes - armed personnel. According to Grossman, we should "never call an unarmed man 'security.'" In short, this is all a question of the actions needed to ensure survival. Gun is PROTECTION
In a startlingly close counter-argument, we find Nicholas D. Kristof from the New York Times Sunday Review Opinion pages. Kristof also laments the differences between guns in the classroom and any other safety initiative. He says, "American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill." To Kristof, the problem is regulation. He does not think that more guns will solve this problem, saying "Likewise, don’t bother with the argument that if more people carried guns, they would deter shooters or interrupt them. Mass shooters typically kill themselves or are promptly caught, so it’s hard to see what deterrence would be added by having more people pack heat." We need more regulations, says Kristof, and many like him. Safety regulations work, and this is just one more. Regulations will keep us safe from the threat of guns. Gun is MENACE
So where would Rapaille put this? Well, procuring his services for the afternoon would be a bit cost prohibitive for someone like me and my lowly blog. I can hazard a few guesses, though. Rapaille would probably say that the code for gun is about SURVIVAL, in the broadest sense of the word. If I am understanding his approach correctly, I imagine he would say that the difference between the two positions is "gun as threat" vs. "gun as protection." One side fears that survival is not possible with, the other fears that it is not possible to survive without. Were he here, and chatting, Rapaille would probably say, and has, that the code for the liberal and so called "blue states" is THINKING. The code for the "red states" is ACTION. These two arguments, in that light, are consistent with the stereotype. Rapaille says that liberals think to much.
I know I probably do. Right now I am thinking about how to bring these two sides closer together. I don't think they're using the same language at this point.
Critics of his work say that Rapaille traffics in stereotypes. Sometimes the stereotypes are there for a reason. Sometimes being an over-thinker isn't an insult. Sometimes, just sometimes mind you - it's the right thing to do. The only thing you can do; short of hugging a tree and buying a cup of coffee.
December 26, 2012
This just in...
Well, you may have noticed that the Mayans were wrong. There was no apocalypse and we're all still here, careening toward 2013. I am sorry I didn't blog for a while there but, in the absence of an apocalypse, I thought I had best do my Christmas shopping.
I hope you all had a wonderful break: a magical Christmas or a very restful Tuesday. No matter how you spent yesterday, or even the day before that, you might have missed this little gem of a news story that I saw sneak through the wires on Christmas eve. In fact, it's a news article about the news. And how you may, or may not, be getting that news from your local newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune, and 6 other sister papers, have all decided to drop the services of the Associate Press in favor of Reuters America. One of the 6 sister papers impacted is my own local Hartford Courant. This has me befuddled. I grew up understanding that the little "AP" stamp on a story was a kind of seal of approval. This meant that the article that was before me had been tested somehow. What happens now?
The AP has been around since 1846 and is an American news agency. You can read more about it here. It is cooperatively owned, and the contributing newspapers, tv and radio stations write stories and use content that is created by the staff journalist. In exchange for either membership or a pay-fee service, all of the news items generated can be published and re-published. This, for years, was how local papers got along without a foreign correspondent, or a dedicated sports desk. Using AP services meant that you had the resources of many newspapers at your disposal. It was a kind of co-op, for news and now The Tribune has decided to opt-out.
I don't mean to sound like I am naive; I understand that this is largely a financial decision. This move, according to Feder in the article above, will likely save the Tribune about $5 million dollars a year. Still, would this be worth the savings in the end? The 37-year veteran of print newspapers and former editor of North Carolina's News & Record, John L. Robinson says that there's a right reason and a wrong reason to make a change like this. He says that if it's just the money, it's the wrong reason. Papers need services like the AP to fill the pages. Plain and simple. It is very likely impossible or further cost prohibitive to hire the local reporters needed to mind the gap. There will still have to be some outsourcing.
The Tribune and, locally, the Courant will be looking to Reuters to "fill the pages." Reuters is a much newer name in the game than the Associated Press. Reuters is an international company, which really didn't make it to the scene until about 2008. In fact, some of the birth of the Reuters brand came at the hands (and careful contract construction) of the people over at the Tribune parent company. Back in 2010, Newsonomics posted an article about Reuters move into the American market. Here's a snippet of what that deal looked like.
Notice the last three bullets. Reuters is pulling from Sports Direct, The Wrap News and Pro-Am Examiner. Peter Drucker's "Do what you do best, and outsource the rest" is alive at Reuters, according to Newsomomics. It's outsourced news that's been outsourced, all of it getting further and further away from the little local paper.
I understand also that all of this outsourcing for the news isn't new, and it is likely another symptom of a chronic illness from which print media seems to be suffering. Sarah Lacy, over at Pandodaily, suggests that this is just another milestone in the slow death of print media. She goes on to say that being "the paper," the publication of record for an area and the news source, has always been a key requirement for papers like the Courant to thrive.
Maybe there's no such thing as local news anymore.
Well, that's enough Doomsday for one day. I'm starting to miss the Mayans.
I hope you all had a wonderful break: a magical Christmas or a very restful Tuesday. No matter how you spent yesterday, or even the day before that, you might have missed this little gem of a news story that I saw sneak through the wires on Christmas eve. In fact, it's a news article about the news. And how you may, or may not, be getting that news from your local newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune, and 6 other sister papers, have all decided to drop the services of the Associate Press in favor of Reuters America. One of the 6 sister papers impacted is my own local Hartford Courant. This has me befuddled. I grew up understanding that the little "AP" stamp on a story was a kind of seal of approval. This meant that the article that was before me had been tested somehow. What happens now?
The AP has been around since 1846 and is an American news agency. You can read more about it here. It is cooperatively owned, and the contributing newspapers, tv and radio stations write stories and use content that is created by the staff journalist. In exchange for either membership or a pay-fee service, all of the news items generated can be published and re-published. This, for years, was how local papers got along without a foreign correspondent, or a dedicated sports desk. Using AP services meant that you had the resources of many newspapers at your disposal. It was a kind of co-op, for news and now The Tribune has decided to opt-out.
I don't mean to sound like I am naive; I understand that this is largely a financial decision. This move, according to Feder in the article above, will likely save the Tribune about $5 million dollars a year. Still, would this be worth the savings in the end? The 37-year veteran of print newspapers and former editor of North Carolina's News & Record, John L. Robinson says that there's a right reason and a wrong reason to make a change like this. He says that if it's just the money, it's the wrong reason. Papers need services like the AP to fill the pages. Plain and simple. It is very likely impossible or further cost prohibitive to hire the local reporters needed to mind the gap. There will still have to be some outsourcing.
The Tribune and, locally, the Courant will be looking to Reuters to "fill the pages." Reuters is a much newer name in the game than the Associated Press. Reuters is an international company, which really didn't make it to the scene until about 2008. In fact, some of the birth of the Reuters brand came at the hands (and careful contract construction) of the people over at the Tribune parent company. Back in 2010, Newsonomics posted an article about Reuters move into the American market. Here's a snippet of what that deal looked like.
What is Reuters America, and what is it offering Tribune, and now others, as it aims to benefit from newspapers’ occasional family squabbles with AP? The new product is plainly aimed to be a replacement for AP. The new news service combines lots of elements to try to do that:
- Reuters says it is committing to staffing 103 U.S. cities, though at unspecified levels. The staffing will be a mix of full-timers and stringers. The offices will share daily budgets with Tribune (and future customers), and offers to do on-demand stories, maybe as many as two to three a day, as requested by clients.
- A beefed-up sports offering, intended to shore up a long-time Reuters deficiency in the U.S. market. Cricket and rugby coverage just doesn’t cut it here, so Reuters has partnered with Sports Direct, the Sports Xchange and SB Nation to pump up coverage.
- It’s adding The Wrap News for more entertainment content.
- It’s partnering with Pro-Am Examiner.com, harvesting the work of those contributors.
Notice the last three bullets. Reuters is pulling from Sports Direct, The Wrap News and Pro-Am Examiner. Peter Drucker's "Do what you do best, and outsource the rest" is alive at Reuters, according to Newsomomics. It's outsourced news that's been outsourced, all of it getting further and further away from the little local paper.
I understand also that all of this outsourcing for the news isn't new, and it is likely another symptom of a chronic illness from which print media seems to be suffering. Sarah Lacy, over at Pandodaily, suggests that this is just another milestone in the slow death of print media. She goes on to say that being "the paper," the publication of record for an area and the news source, has always been a key requirement for papers like the Courant to thrive.
Are local papers just giving up on that? In an Internet-connected world, maybe they should. As I noted above, the idea that people know nothing that happened in the previous 24 hours until a plastic-wrapped dead tree lands on their porch is silly. On the other hand, if that’s not the role of a local paper, what is the role of a local paper? Are they tacitly admitting to advertisers and readers that there isn’t one?Ouch.
Maybe there's no such thing as local news anymore.
Well, that's enough Doomsday for one day. I'm starting to miss the Mayans.
December 20, 2012
Russell Brand and the WBC
This video has gone viral. If you haven't seen it yet, please watch it. Well, most of it. You'll get enough of the right ideas by the 7 minute mark.
The Westboro Baptist Church had planned to protest the funerals of several of the victims of 12/14/12. The army of volunteers that offered to stand between them and those who were mourning the dead was incredible. In the end, or at least so far, no one has come to Connecticut. Let's hope it stays that way.
The Westboro Baptist Church had planned to protest the funerals of several of the victims of 12/14/12. The army of volunteers that offered to stand between them and those who were mourning the dead was incredible. In the end, or at least so far, no one has come to Connecticut. Let's hope it stays that way.
December 19, 2012
12/14/12
Just a date. That's all I could think about for a long while after the horror of the events at Newtown, CT this past week.
4/20/99
Do you know that one? That's the date for the shootings at Columbine. My nephew was 8 years old and attending school in Littleton, CO. I remember the guilty sigh of relief when I realized it was the high school that had been under siege, and not the elementary school.
But this was not my family; not this time.
4/16/07
Virginia Tech. I can't remember how to pronounce his name, but I remember that there was a host of photos, posed shots of this young man assailant and his manifesto, all spread throughout the CNN web page. For days, there was mourning and trying to understand what parts were connected.
I was teaching at my University and developed a plan for what I would do if someone started shooting in my building, while I was teaching. The doors lock when they are closed. The window on the door is shatterproof. If everyone clustered in the middle of the room, there would be no line-to-sight. We could shut the lights off and someone would walk right past.
But this was not my school; not this time. And there is something reassuring about having a plan.
Most people would have to Google those dates. I did not. Both of those dates are burned into my brain. I was changed by the events of those days. 12/14/12 will be the next date to change me.
Almost immediately, the gun control debate began. And the debate about how well we support our mentally ill. Violent games? What about the "fact that we've removed God from school?" Forgiving (briefly), Huckabee's baseline insanity, and the fact that he walked it back a bit, we're all grasping for answers. How did this happen? How much could we do to make it never happen again? My heart tells me it is all of these things more than it is any one of them, with the possible exception of Huckabee's weird diatribe.
What happened on 12/14/12 was a very special recipe designed to produce disaster. Like most recipes that you've experienced, the big ingredients are easy to pick out: the dominant flavors. Behind them, simpler and subtle flavors that are harder to identify. Could that be a hint of nutmeg, you ask; you're not completely sure. What could have possibly been the secret ingredient that set a master plan into motion? We will never know all of the components of this recipe beyond just the big flavors that we can suss out for ourselves. What we are always left with, after tragedies such as this, is the list of what-ifs, some half theory about what comes next, and a date that we must never forget.
4/20/99
Do you know that one? That's the date for the shootings at Columbine. My nephew was 8 years old and attending school in Littleton, CO. I remember the guilty sigh of relief when I realized it was the high school that had been under siege, and not the elementary school.
But this was not my family; not this time.
4/16/07
Virginia Tech. I can't remember how to pronounce his name, but I remember that there was a host of photos, posed shots of this young man assailant and his manifesto, all spread throughout the CNN web page. For days, there was mourning and trying to understand what parts were connected.
I was teaching at my University and developed a plan for what I would do if someone started shooting in my building, while I was teaching. The doors lock when they are closed. The window on the door is shatterproof. If everyone clustered in the middle of the room, there would be no line-to-sight. We could shut the lights off and someone would walk right past.
But this was not my school; not this time. And there is something reassuring about having a plan.
Most people would have to Google those dates. I did not. Both of those dates are burned into my brain. I was changed by the events of those days. 12/14/12 will be the next date to change me.
Almost immediately, the gun control debate began. And the debate about how well we support our mentally ill. Violent games? What about the "fact that we've removed God from school?" Forgiving (briefly), Huckabee's baseline insanity, and the fact that he walked it back a bit, we're all grasping for answers. How did this happen? How much could we do to make it never happen again? My heart tells me it is all of these things more than it is any one of them, with the possible exception of Huckabee's weird diatribe.
What happened on 12/14/12 was a very special recipe designed to produce disaster. Like most recipes that you've experienced, the big ingredients are easy to pick out: the dominant flavors. Behind them, simpler and subtle flavors that are harder to identify. Could that be a hint of nutmeg, you ask; you're not completely sure. What could have possibly been the secret ingredient that set a master plan into motion? We will never know all of the components of this recipe beyond just the big flavors that we can suss out for ourselves. What we are always left with, after tragedies such as this, is the list of what-ifs, some half theory about what comes next, and a date that we must never forget.
December 11, 2012
Christie On "Harsh vs. Honest"
New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, was on the Daily Show last week. If you head out to the Daily Show's web page, you will find the extended interview. This is a little bit beautiful. Even Jon Stewart can't help but to laugh. Say way you will about Christie, and I will pause while you do that.
Done?
Ok, now: Christie's a funny guy who feels really real. And Really Real is something that the Romney/Ryan ticket couldn't do. This little bit here shows someone that, I believe, is very charismatic, and would be a welcome addition to the 2016 Presidential ticket. The other favorites from the GOP can't do what he does. Think about it: when was the last time Paul Ryan made you laugh? I mean, not "at" but "with?" Marco Rubio? I can't remember what that guy looks like when I am looking right at him. Christie, you don't forget. He's doing something a little more authentic. Notice near the 8:45 mark, Jon says "You keep that up and, I think, you and Hillary are going to have a hell of a battle in 2016." He goes on to say that the people are starved for this kind of honest.
Christie, himself, made the "starved" joke about his own weight. I have to admit, I like the guy. Honest.
Done?
Ok, now: Christie's a funny guy who feels really real. And Really Real is something that the Romney/Ryan ticket couldn't do. This little bit here shows someone that, I believe, is very charismatic, and would be a welcome addition to the 2016 Presidential ticket. The other favorites from the GOP can't do what he does. Think about it: when was the last time Paul Ryan made you laugh? I mean, not "at" but "with?" Marco Rubio? I can't remember what that guy looks like when I am looking right at him. Christie, you don't forget. He's doing something a little more authentic. Notice near the 8:45 mark, Jon says "You keep that up and, I think, you and Hillary are going to have a hell of a battle in 2016." He goes on to say that the people are starved for this kind of honest.
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Chris Christie Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Christie, himself, made the "starved" joke about his own weight. I have to admit, I like the guy. Honest.
Epilogue, sort of.
Tonight was the last class of the Media in the 2012 Election. That class was what brought me here, to blogging. I have some feelings around the idea of this class ending. I will miss our Monday nights very much.
I have made a very important decision, however. I am gonna keep blogging.
The class has ended, but I don't want this to be the end of Cache o' the Day. We're too cute to quit, amiright? Anyway. If you like this blog, the good news is your stuck with me. If you don't like this blog, the good news is... you're stuck with me and maybe I will grow on you. Maybe not. Either way, my plan is to continue to write about where my browsing leads me. There will be some politics, some computer/technical stuff, some media stuff, and a bit of literature stuff for good measure. Who knows?
Are you game?
I have made a very important decision, however. I am gonna keep blogging.
The class has ended, but I don't want this to be the end of Cache o' the Day. We're too cute to quit, amiright? Anyway. If you like this blog, the good news is your stuck with me. If you don't like this blog, the good news is... you're stuck with me and maybe I will grow on you. Maybe not. Either way, my plan is to continue to write about where my browsing leads me. There will be some politics, some computer/technical stuff, some media stuff, and a bit of literature stuff for good measure. Who knows?
Are you game?
December 4, 2012
Playing with Your News, Part Deux
This one is about the fiscal cliff. Fun! Except that it's about your taxes, your family and your future. But other than that....
Thanks, Washington Post.
Thanks, Washington Post.
December 1, 2012
"The data's the thing/Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king"
Alright. That's not quite what Shakespeare said. In Hamlet, Shakespeare's broken prince attempts to gain a reaction from his regicidal uncle by showing the new king scenes in a play that are familiar enough to his ghost father's story of murder. If he can get a reaction, Hamlet believes he will know what path to take.
It's not quite the same as murder, but there are more than a few databases out there prepared to create and manage scenarios of voter outcome. Tweaking and analyzing that data can generate enough information to get a reaction out of the best of us. The goal: how can the Obama campaign change your mind and earn your vote.
If you haven't already done so, you should read Time Magazine's article Obama Wins: How Chicago's Data-Driven Campaign Triumphed. Warning: it could hurt your head. In the Time's piece, Michael Scherer writes about the scientists and data people that were hired by President Obama's campaign to be the inside scoop to win the election. This team was hired and assembled by Jim Messina, and according to Scherer: "He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official “chief scientist” for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions."
Sasha Issenberg has been talking about the Obama campaign and data for a long while. In a series of articles for Slate called "The Victory Lab" (and a book of the same name), Issenberg warns that this data wasn't just used to prompt new voters through Facebook.
While this technique is not new, it could be argued that since the Obama team mastered it, it may have been the tipping point for them to win the election. Romney's campaign never fully caught up to the Obama campaign, in terms of technology. Romney didn't have the staff or the tools in place fast enough to generate the response needed to catch up to the technology game of his opponent. The result? A different kind of Shakespearian tragedy for that camp.
It's not quite the same as murder, but there are more than a few databases out there prepared to create and manage scenarios of voter outcome. Tweaking and analyzing that data can generate enough information to get a reaction out of the best of us. The goal: how can the Obama campaign change your mind and earn your vote.
If you haven't already done so, you should read Time Magazine's article Obama Wins: How Chicago's Data-Driven Campaign Triumphed. Warning: it could hurt your head. In the Time's piece, Michael Scherer writes about the scientists and data people that were hired by President Obama's campaign to be the inside scoop to win the election. This team was hired and assembled by Jim Messina, and according to Scherer: "He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official “chief scientist” for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions."
It would seem that what we understand about supermarket sales promotions does, in fact, translate to the world of politics. Because of research and analysis, the Obama campaign was able to raise over $1 billion. The two most useful tools to meet that goal were the targeted emails and a program called "Quick Donate." Quick Donate made it possible for a donor to give again, via text or online, without having to re-enter credit card information. The people who participated in that program gave about 4 times as much as other donors.
According to Scherer, the data told the "scientists" that George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker were the key figures on each coast that could be manipulated as fundraising tools. Women of a certain demographic would be willing to donate in exchange for a dinner with Clooney (west coast) or Parker (east coast). The data reveled that buying advertising during shows like The Walking Dead and Sons of Anarchy would target the precise demographic for the needs of the campaign.
Apart from creating donors, another key point of movement for a campaign is "getting out the vote." Here the data sets were once again ready to rescue the day. Donors and volunteers who used Facebook were asked to target friends who were voters in swing states. "In the final weeks of the campaign, people who had downloaded an app were sent messages with pictures of their friends in swing states. They were told to click a button to automatically urge those targeted voters to take certain actions, such as registering to vote, voting early or getting to the polls."
With an eager pool of academic collaborators in political science, behavioral psychology, and economics linking up with curious political operatives and hacks, the left has birthed an unexpected subculture. It now contains a full-fledged electioneering intelligentsia, focused on integrating large-scale survey research with randomized experimental methods to isolate particular populations that can be moved by political contact.All of this information is, of course, designed to teach the campaigns a little bit about who can be persuaded. In fact, persuasion is the word of the hour for the 2012 election. In ProPublica's article, we learn about persuasion scores. These scores allowed the campaign to to focus their efforts on people who may actually change their minds.
While this technique is not new, it could be argued that since the Obama team mastered it, it may have been the tipping point for them to win the election. Romney's campaign never fully caught up to the Obama campaign, in terms of technology. Romney didn't have the staff or the tools in place fast enough to generate the response needed to catch up to the technology game of his opponent. The result? A different kind of Shakespearian tragedy for that camp.
November 27, 2012
November 26, 2012
Playing with the News
Remember this? The New York Times does an amazing job of interactive features. I feel like this is the play center for political junkies.
This is an interactive feature that shows what words were used at the two conventions. I wonder why there isn't an equivalent that shows the words from the debates.
This one is fun, too, but much less about the messages of the election.
Last one. This one lets you tick through the NYT presidential endorsements.
This is an interactive feature that shows what words were used at the two conventions. I wonder why there isn't an equivalent that shows the words from the debates.
This one is fun, too, but much less about the messages of the election.
Last one. This one lets you tick through the NYT presidential endorsements.
November 25, 2012
A Few New Media Models
Yesterday's post talked about a few of the issues that this election failed to address, directly or indirectly. There are more I could mention: religion and its growing impact on politics; net neutrality; and a national stance on the death penalty. None of these got a voice louder than a whisper's worth of media coverage this election season. It falls to those of us who are outsiders to the world of journalism to find a new model that will help move this message. If these issues are dogs that did not bark in the 2012 Presidential Election, here are a few ways to instigate that puppy going forward. It might take a bit of a media revolution to do it, but we do have the tools to push for better coverage of these topics.
According to Alan Rusbridger, editor at The Guardian and champion of open journalism, this "...is journalism which is fully knitted into the web of information that exists in the world today. It links to it; sifts and filters it; collaborates with it and generally uses the ability of anyone to publish and share material to give a better account of the world." While some issues would develop their own niche, it isn't impossible to believe that it could broaden the conversation. Since many believe that open is the wave of the future, we would all do well to learn more about it. This model of journalism would make user generated content the norm, and that would allow for a wider range of topics open to discussion. That means, with vigilant use of these outlets, no topic should miss media coverage of some kind. You are invited to take the media into your own hands.
I have to confess: I have an "idea crush" on The Young Turks. I whole-heartedly wish I had thought of this! If you aren't familiar with this news source, I will explain a little here, and you can find much more information out at Wikipedia. The Young Turks are the largest online news show in the world. The brain-child of Cenk Uygur, TYT was designed to follow the pattern of a public access cable television show. After cutting his teeth with blogging and then eventually with radio, TYT was supposed to be an open platform for Uygur to discuss the issues that mattered most to him. What happens next is just short of revolutionary. TYT is a show that exists only as a live web feed and through YouTube. After just a few short years at the helm of TYT, Uygur is also sought after for television news programs. He's forced the decision makers to notice him.
In a recent interview, Uygur says that he started TYT because he believes that online news will eventually "... eclipse network programming and that Americans are starved of public service journalism. "We're looking for journalism in all the wrong places. What's the last story anyone on television in America broke?""
Looking back at 2012, it is pretty obvious that there were some stories that didn't get covered, and so were not a part of the election conversation. While we can talk about how media coverage is broken, and what steps can be taken to fix it, Uygur and proponents of open journalism say "don't fix it; replace it." I have to admit that the idea appeals to me.
¡Viva la revolution!
*Ack! Did I just quote myself? Isn't there a rule against that?
Participate in Open Source Journalism
A couple of months ago, I wrote an post here on the idea of open source journalism.* There are many disadvantages of open source journalism, but this still might be a good model for how to insert content into the election dialog. Open source journalism encourages reader participation. What this model allows is the participation of the audience to create content or to add to traditional reporter sources. No topic is off limits, but the classic example of a successful open sourced article comes to us from The Guardian's Paul Lewis. Lewis has used the comments fields, Twitter and general crowd sourcing to find video and commentary on anything from riots to a murder, all to support his own reporting. His stories are made stronger - and some are told completely - by non-journalists who can provide a fuller picture of the issues that are important to them.According to Alan Rusbridger, editor at The Guardian and champion of open journalism, this "...is journalism which is fully knitted into the web of information that exists in the world today. It links to it; sifts and filters it; collaborates with it and generally uses the ability of anyone to publish and share material to give a better account of the world." While some issues would develop their own niche, it isn't impossible to believe that it could broaden the conversation. Since many believe that open is the wave of the future, we would all do well to learn more about it. This model of journalism would make user generated content the norm, and that would allow for a wider range of topics open to discussion. That means, with vigilant use of these outlets, no topic should miss media coverage of some kind. You are invited to take the media into your own hands.
Do Something Completely Different
If open source journalism encourages user participation as a new media model, it begs the question of a hostile take-over altogether. The Young Turks are the hostile take-over.I have to confess: I have an "idea crush" on The Young Turks. I whole-heartedly wish I had thought of this! If you aren't familiar with this news source, I will explain a little here, and you can find much more information out at Wikipedia. The Young Turks are the largest online news show in the world. The brain-child of Cenk Uygur, TYT was designed to follow the pattern of a public access cable television show. After cutting his teeth with blogging and then eventually with radio, TYT was supposed to be an open platform for Uygur to discuss the issues that mattered most to him. What happens next is just short of revolutionary. TYT is a show that exists only as a live web feed and through YouTube. After just a few short years at the helm of TYT, Uygur is also sought after for television news programs. He's forced the decision makers to notice him.
In a recent interview, Uygur says that he started TYT because he believes that online news will eventually "... eclipse network programming and that Americans are starved of public service journalism. "We're looking for journalism in all the wrong places. What's the last story anyone on television in America broke?""
Looking back at 2012, it is pretty obvious that there were some stories that didn't get covered, and so were not a part of the election conversation. While we can talk about how media coverage is broken, and what steps can be taken to fix it, Uygur and proponents of open journalism say "don't fix it; replace it." I have to admit that the idea appeals to me.
¡Viva la revolution!
*Ack! Did I just quote myself? Isn't there a rule against that?
November 24, 2012
"Hindsight is 20/20."
I normally try to avoid this over-simple idiomatic expression. Unfortunately, sometimes, there is no simpler way to say that looking back gives us an advantage over the context of our lives; it helps us to see clearly what we missed the first time.
One of the clearest issues that was missed in this election is poverty. The numbers are staggering. Based on research at The Urban Institute, in 2010, number of Americans living in poverty rose to a 20 year high 15%. It is also possible that the current measurement for poverty isn't hitting all of the at-risk population. That's to say, it is very likely that the number of people who are living right on the edge of this everyday is much higher than we can currently gage.
Another issue that didn't make it to the dominant discourse of this 2012 presidential election was the issue of civil liberties. In December, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which would allow for indefinite military detention without charge or trial for the first time in American history. Between NDAA, the continued reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and the President's failure to follow through on a 2008 campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp, this could have been a useful chink in the armor for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. According to the Huffington Post, this issue is one where Obama followers have been the most disappointed. There are those that think "disappointment" is too weak a word to describe the damage. In an op-ed piece for the LATimes, Johnathan Turley said that Obama was a disaster to Civil Liberties. The worst of the crimes, he says, is reducing the topic of civil liberties to a whisper.
The media seems to support this idea, if it mentions the differences at all, it is with a tone of "sticking with the devil you know."
Wrong. According to Pew, American's trust in government is at an all time low. The issue seems to be about government surviellance laws that the Patriot Act enables. Americans have more qualms about government monitoring and data collection efforts. More oppose (55%) than favor (42%) the U.S. government methods for collecting data about potential threats. It seems that giving up civil liberties as a balance for national security is a deal the American public is growing tired of and it will have to change. As a nation that prides freedom above all others, it does seem odd that there was not a sufficient outrage in media outlets to keep the topic of eroding civil liberties at the forefront this election.
We're nearly a month out from the presidential election of 2012, so what can we learn in hindsight? What did we miss the first time? Specifically, I would like to talk about the issues that didn't get the attention they deserved. It is odd to me that there is a pre-determined list of issues for each election. That's to say, each media source or quiz that was designed to help you pick your president in 2012 had a list of issues well in advance of the election. These are your talking points. This is what we will use to pick our next leader. Here's what CNN had listed. You've got 12 things. ABC's Match-O-Meter had about 8 points to help you pick your president.
Surely there are more things to work on for our country than this list of 8 - 12 items. Something didn't make it to the party. What about the issues that didn't make the spotlight?
One of the clearest issues that was missed in this election is poverty. The numbers are staggering. Based on research at The Urban Institute, in 2010, number of Americans living in poverty rose to a 20 year high 15%. It is also possible that the current measurement for poverty isn't hitting all of the at-risk population. That's to say, it is very likely that the number of people who are living right on the edge of this everyday is much higher than we can currently gage.
So, why didn't the media talk about this? Why weren't the candidates' hands forced? Why were there no poverty based talking points? In this transcript of TELL ME MORE, Michael Martin talks to three guests about some of the issues missed during this election cycle. Melinda Henneberger, a political writer for the Washington Post, suggests that "... it's because it's the perception that there's no constituency for that, that since poor people don't vote, we don't have to address that incredibly important issue." She goes on to say that when poverty does get mentioned on the campaign trail, it is to denigrate Obama's administration for the number of people getting food stamps. I think she is spot on in her assessment of why the campaigns skip the topic, but why would the media skip over the discussion of poverty? Could it be something as insidious as "poor people don't buy newspapers, cable etc.?"
Another issue that didn't make it to the dominant discourse of this 2012 presidential election was the issue of civil liberties. In December, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which would allow for indefinite military detention without charge or trial for the first time in American history. Between NDAA, the continued reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and the President's failure to follow through on a 2008 campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp, this could have been a useful chink in the armor for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. According to the Huffington Post, this issue is one where Obama followers have been the most disappointed. There are those that think "disappointment" is too weak a word to describe the damage. In an op-ed piece for the LATimes, Johnathan Turley said that Obama was a disaster to Civil Liberties. The worst of the crimes, he says, is reducing the topic of civil liberties to a whisper.
Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.
The media seems to support this idea, if it mentions the differences at all, it is with a tone of "sticking with the devil you know."
While some civil liberties issues made their way into the election cycle by asserting a place on state by state ballots, nothing came up at any of the debates. The reason for this seems to be that the candidates generally agree on how to proceed. Since Romney and Obama see eye to eye, there's no reason to talk about it, right?
Wrong. According to Pew, American's trust in government is at an all time low. The issue seems to be about government surviellance laws that the Patriot Act enables. Americans have more qualms about government monitoring and data collection efforts. More oppose (55%) than favor (42%) the U.S. government methods for collecting data about potential threats. It seems that giving up civil liberties as a balance for national security is a deal the American public is growing tired of and it will have to change. As a nation that prides freedom above all others, it does seem odd that there was not a sufficient outrage in media outlets to keep the topic of eroding civil liberties at the forefront this election.
Poverty and an assault on our civil liberties are not issues that are going to be resolved quickly. We just need to start talking about it. And voting about it. But hind-sight is 20/20 and we missed our chance this last time.
November 21, 2012
“Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle…”
I have had such a bad few weeks; I can't tell you. No. Really. I can't tell you. First, because there is a law against sharing some of the vital information to explain the complexity of the bad (read: FERPA). Secondly, I try not to swear on this blog and, frankly, that is also important to understanding the complexity of the bad (read: George Carlin). I offer this not as an excuse, but an explanation for my blogging gaps. Things should be calming down for me now that Thanksgiving is here, so you will go back to seeing too much of me.
No matter how bad my month of November has been, at least there is one thing that I have continued to do: follow the news and browse the web. There is one story that is brewing that has really captured my attention. Not for content, but for coverage.
The first time I saw anyone talking about modern day secession from the United States of America was on Facebook. A friend of mine posted this link to the Examiner. I didn't really believe it, so I Googled it and when I found it at the Washington Post, I felt a little ill. The Examiner was reporting it, and the WaPo had a blog, but both posts seem pretty news-y. The focus is on the "who, what, where, when and why" part of journalism. Here's another; this one from NBCNew.com on the 12th of November. Even the class I took in high school on journalism would approve of all of these articles. Very informative.
The method of reporting on this topic has evolved since those early days. It may be that the damage and threat of these seceders is becoming more apparent as their numbers grow, but the style of coverage is changing, too. Many of the articles I found myself reading over the past week have added the kind of coverage that increases the legitimacy of the secession movement.
Let's start at Politico. In a post that has Ron Paul, arms spread open under an American flag, saying that secession is an American principle, it is hard not to see the subtext. Politico also offers us a bit of a history lesson around the idea of secession. It's natural. It's American. It's a sign of the truest freedom. Huh? Ok. I remember more than my fair share of "America: Love it or Leave it!" sentiment from the early 2000s, but I don't remember them saying that they would take a part of it when they left. This is sensationalizing the news about a very small group of people, no matter how you slice it.
Even the Huffington Post can't help but add the air of legitimacy to this. Here's an article explaining the good news and bad news that awaits the newly formed country. And where would we be without a poll to see who is in support of the plans to secede: "...42 percent strongly opposing the idea, while 22 percent said they supported the idea. A quarter weren't sure." There are those damned undecided voters again! Someone get Nate Silver on the line.
Here's an article out of Canada that calls in a lawyer to find out what the legal implications would be. The Daily Beast compared this group of revolutionaries to the ones that started the civil war, even while they criticized their rationale.
Some media outlets gave the proponents of secession a platform! Fox News interviewed the leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Daniel Miller lays out, very clearly, why he thinks his cause would win if taken to a state referendum in this interview with Hannity.
Can we stop this, please? We are still talking about 700,000 out of 312 billion Americans. While statistics isn't my strong suit, I think this is a really small percent to be talking about with maps, economists, lawyers and historians. Watching the news unfold around this movement makes me want to scream. Stop giving this group attention! Go back to "just the facts" reporting. Anything less gives them legitimacy that their numbers do not deserve. We've moved to the teenage years of the Tea Party movement where they're threatening to run away. You can say "let 'em try" or you can beg "don't go!" and both of those will only fuel the tantrum. Don't reward bad behavior with attention. There are plenty of other things to pay attention to instead. Anything will do really.
Just don't bring me back to George Carlin.
No matter how bad my month of November has been, at least there is one thing that I have continued to do: follow the news and browse the web. There is one story that is brewing that has really captured my attention. Not for content, but for coverage.
The first time I saw anyone talking about modern day secession from the United States of America was on Facebook. A friend of mine posted this link to the Examiner. I didn't really believe it, so I Googled it and when I found it at the Washington Post, I felt a little ill. The Examiner was reporting it, and the WaPo had a blog, but both posts seem pretty news-y. The focus is on the "who, what, where, when and why" part of journalism. Here's another; this one from NBCNew.com on the 12th of November. Even the class I took in high school on journalism would approve of all of these articles. Very informative.
The method of reporting on this topic has evolved since those early days. It may be that the damage and threat of these seceders is becoming more apparent as their numbers grow, but the style of coverage is changing, too. Many of the articles I found myself reading over the past week have added the kind of coverage that increases the legitimacy of the secession movement.
Let's start at Politico. In a post that has Ron Paul, arms spread open under an American flag, saying that secession is an American principle, it is hard not to see the subtext. Politico also offers us a bit of a history lesson around the idea of secession. It's natural. It's American. It's a sign of the truest freedom. Huh? Ok. I remember more than my fair share of "America: Love it or Leave it!" sentiment from the early 2000s, but I don't remember them saying that they would take a part of it when they left. This is sensationalizing the news about a very small group of people, no matter how you slice it.
Even the Huffington Post can't help but add the air of legitimacy to this. Here's an article explaining the good news and bad news that awaits the newly formed country. And where would we be without a poll to see who is in support of the plans to secede: "...42 percent strongly opposing the idea, while 22 percent said they supported the idea. A quarter weren't sure." There are those damned undecided voters again! Someone get Nate Silver on the line.
Here's an article out of Canada that calls in a lawyer to find out what the legal implications would be. The Daily Beast compared this group of revolutionaries to the ones that started the civil war, even while they criticized their rationale.
Some media outlets gave the proponents of secession a platform! Fox News interviewed the leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Daniel Miller lays out, very clearly, why he thinks his cause would win if taken to a state referendum in this interview with Hannity.
Can we stop this, please? We are still talking about 700,000 out of 312 billion Americans. While statistics isn't my strong suit, I think this is a really small percent to be talking about with maps, economists, lawyers and historians. Watching the news unfold around this movement makes me want to scream. Stop giving this group attention! Go back to "just the facts" reporting. Anything less gives them legitimacy that their numbers do not deserve. We've moved to the teenage years of the Tea Party movement where they're threatening to run away. You can say "let 'em try" or you can beg "don't go!" and both of those will only fuel the tantrum. Don't reward bad behavior with attention. There are plenty of other things to pay attention to instead. Anything will do really.
Just don't bring me back to George Carlin.
November 19, 2012
Satire and Addiction
Jon Stewart is a dangerous drug. Oh sure, you think it's fine to watch. Once and a while. As a kind of stress relieving, pallet cleansing, social thing. I mean, there's no way you'd get hooked, right? And there's definitely no way that you'd look to this guy for anything on a regular basis, right? So you tune in. A couple of times. And the it sneaks up on you.
I have a confession folks: I got hooked on The Daily Show during this election cycle. I started watching because after all of the reading online, blogging online and well, analysis, I wanted to just laugh. But I may have learned a bit, too.
It really started when I decided to write about bias. I struggled to craft a thought about how the news media handles and spins the news of the day. As a part of that conversation, I could talk about bias at Fox News. I could give examples, and perhaps I could even do a lovely job of saying that many media outlets that feel their job is to make sure you understand the news their way, more than just deliver the news to you. Struggle as I do, Stewart just makes it look easy. Take this beautiful riff on Fox News after the 47% video surfaced. "Romney jazz. It's the words you don't hear..."
I was hooked.
A month passe, and I had a nice routine. Just one episode before bed, I'd say. I have to blog about the second debate, and this will make it more palatable. I knew Romney had lost, I knew that the President's aggression and passion had returned to the room. How do you capture the moment when it became clearest that Obama had "game, set, match'd" his way to victory in the debate. I wasn't sure. But here was Stewart:
At 1:44: "There's your first clue." Beautiful.
It is also worth mentioning that John Stewart is a gateway drug. The next thing I knew, I was up later and later. I started watching the Colbert Report. This bit appeared just a bit before Halloween. Colbert takes on Donald Trump (language warning).
And this is when it hits me! John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are not just saying things that are funny. They are saying things that I wish I could say, things I wish I had said. These men are the modern day licensed fool in the King's court. With a certain divine knack and clarity, these guys can tell all of America just how bad it's getting and earn a smile for the trouble. Such honesty is addictive.
I have a confession folks: I got hooked on The Daily Show during this election cycle. I started watching because after all of the reading online, blogging online and well, analysis, I wanted to just laugh. But I may have learned a bit, too.
It really started when I decided to write about bias. I struggled to craft a thought about how the news media handles and spins the news of the day. As a part of that conversation, I could talk about bias at Fox News. I could give examples, and perhaps I could even do a lovely job of saying that many media outlets that feel their job is to make sure you understand the news their way, more than just deliver the news to you. Struggle as I do, Stewart just makes it look easy. Take this beautiful riff on Fox News after the 47% video surfaced. "Romney jazz. It's the words you don't hear..."
I was hooked.
A month passe, and I had a nice routine. Just one episode before bed, I'd say. I have to blog about the second debate, and this will make it more palatable. I knew Romney had lost, I knew that the President's aggression and passion had returned to the room. How do you capture the moment when it became clearest that Obama had "game, set, match'd" his way to victory in the debate. I wasn't sure. But here was Stewart:
At 1:44: "There's your first clue." Beautiful.
It is also worth mentioning that John Stewart is a gateway drug. The next thing I knew, I was up later and later. I started watching the Colbert Report. This bit appeared just a bit before Halloween. Colbert takes on Donald Trump (language warning).
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
And this is when it hits me! John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are not just saying things that are funny. They are saying things that I wish I could say, things I wish I had said. These men are the modern day licensed fool in the King's court. With a certain divine knack and clarity, these guys can tell all of America just how bad it's getting and earn a smile for the trouble. Such honesty is addictive.
November 13, 2012
Well, that's one reason
I had to share this. This is one reason for Obama's win that we had not yet considered. Thank you Mr. Norquist.
November 12, 2012
Then and Now: What ideas made it past November
I thought it might be fun to go back and look at ideas from older media buzz and see which stories survived to the other side of election day. There were several really interesting stories that emerged, thematic ideas and "one-off's," that actually stuck. As we look at the media, post Obama 2012 victory, how many of those ideas are a part of the stories we tell about how that happened.
Looking through the general feel of news outlets this past week, I think it is important to make a distinction. There is a group of people that are firmly saying that Romney lost. Let me be clearer: the story is more about how Romney lost than it is about how Obama won. When you're watching the knot unravel, it's a very important distinction.
"The Gimme and the Give Up"
Way back in September, Laura Ingraham said that this election was a gimme. She said that if Romney couldn't win this election, against this sitting president, than the whole of the GOP should be shut down. She wasn't the only one on this bandwagon. There were a few Republicans who said that this was the end for the GOP. Remember Rush Limbaugh saying "[I]f the Republican Party can't win in this environment, it has to get out of politics." Fast forward a bit and let's see how that message made it to November. Well, they haven't closed up shop, but the new phrase you will see is "Republican Soul Searching." There's a lot of it, apparently. But, it's probably not going to be worth it. Either way, it's odd to see Fox say that Romney's loss caused Obama's win.
"The Demographics are Changing and People Want Stuff"
Remember this interview? This is also back from September. This video was, at first, originally about Sarah Palin agreeing with Ingraham. By the middle of the video, Bill O'Reilly is talking about the changing demographic of the nation and, a little too close on the heels of that idea, about how the (who, exact?) all want stuff. This is still his message. He's still talking about entitlements being part of why the election happened the way it did. Oh, and demographics. Everyone is talking about demographics and the GOP gap with appealing to the parts of the country that are not white males. Hopefully, they actually do figure out how to close the gap.
As an aside, I re-watched the video interview with Palin for the first time since it originally was posted on September 11th. This was a full week before the now-famous 47% video of Romney was made public. You might notice how closely O'Reilly's language tracks to the comments Romney made in the video. "Half the population wants something." Maybe Romney took the hit for repeating something he heard someone else say first.
Obama may have had that same problem with the "You didn't build that," since that concept was first made famous by Elizabeth Warren.
"It's about Math'
When former President Clinton opined about arithmetic at the DNC, I don't think he meant it in the way that math has come to be discussed at the end stages and recap of the 2012 election. Clinton was trying to say that Romney's budget plans did not add up. There were simply not enough loopholes to close to make the spread for what Romney proposed could be done. It was great fun, and probably one of my favorite moments from the DNC for "punch and zing" factor. It wasn't Clinton, Romney or even Obama that would have the lasting word on math in this election, however. It was Nate Silver.
I like this quote from, of all sources, Psychology Today. "2008 was the year of Obama, and 2010 was the year of the Tea Party. 2012 was the year of Nate Silver."
It was the year of the math geek, according to Forbes, too.
What started out as the kind of election cycle where we paid attention to pundits, became an election of polls. Everyone had one. Most said that the actually voting day results would be Romney. Nate Silver stood out among the pollsters as saying an Obama victory was more likely. More likely. That's all. Not "a shoe-in, everybody go home." For this, he has been pretty widely lambasted, but is also enjoying a bit more celebrity than a statistician would normally garner. If you'd like a giggle, check out @DrunkNateSilver on Twitter. Although, #drunkNateSilver is also just as funny. Some warning for language.
You just never know how something is going to hold up, or who you will run into down the line. There were some strange people in my StopNShop last night.
Looking through the general feel of news outlets this past week, I think it is important to make a distinction. There is a group of people that are firmly saying that Romney lost. Let me be clearer: the story is more about how Romney lost than it is about how Obama won. When you're watching the knot unravel, it's a very important distinction.
"The Gimme and the Give Up"
Way back in September, Laura Ingraham said that this election was a gimme. She said that if Romney couldn't win this election, against this sitting president, than the whole of the GOP should be shut down. She wasn't the only one on this bandwagon. There were a few Republicans who said that this was the end for the GOP. Remember Rush Limbaugh saying "[I]f the Republican Party can't win in this environment, it has to get out of politics." Fast forward a bit and let's see how that message made it to November. Well, they haven't closed up shop, but the new phrase you will see is "Republican Soul Searching." There's a lot of it, apparently. But, it's probably not going to be worth it. Either way, it's odd to see Fox say that Romney's loss caused Obama's win.
"The Demographics are Changing and People Want Stuff"
Remember this interview? This is also back from September. This video was, at first, originally about Sarah Palin agreeing with Ingraham. By the middle of the video, Bill O'Reilly is talking about the changing demographic of the nation and, a little too close on the heels of that idea, about how the (who, exact?) all want stuff. This is still his message. He's still talking about entitlements being part of why the election happened the way it did. Oh, and demographics. Everyone is talking about demographics and the GOP gap with appealing to the parts of the country that are not white males. Hopefully, they actually do figure out how to close the gap.
As an aside, I re-watched the video interview with Palin for the first time since it originally was posted on September 11th. This was a full week before the now-famous 47% video of Romney was made public. You might notice how closely O'Reilly's language tracks to the comments Romney made in the video. "Half the population wants something." Maybe Romney took the hit for repeating something he heard someone else say first.
Obama may have had that same problem with the "You didn't build that," since that concept was first made famous by Elizabeth Warren.
"It's about Math'
When former President Clinton opined about arithmetic at the DNC, I don't think he meant it in the way that math has come to be discussed at the end stages and recap of the 2012 election. Clinton was trying to say that Romney's budget plans did not add up. There were simply not enough loopholes to close to make the spread for what Romney proposed could be done. It was great fun, and probably one of my favorite moments from the DNC for "punch and zing" factor. It wasn't Clinton, Romney or even Obama that would have the lasting word on math in this election, however. It was Nate Silver.
I like this quote from, of all sources, Psychology Today. "2008 was the year of Obama, and 2010 was the year of the Tea Party. 2012 was the year of Nate Silver."
It was the year of the math geek, according to Forbes, too.
What started out as the kind of election cycle where we paid attention to pundits, became an election of polls. Everyone had one. Most said that the actually voting day results would be Romney. Nate Silver stood out among the pollsters as saying an Obama victory was more likely. More likely. That's all. Not "a shoe-in, everybody go home." For this, he has been pretty widely lambasted, but is also enjoying a bit more celebrity than a statistician would normally garner. If you'd like a giggle, check out @DrunkNateSilver on Twitter. Although, #drunkNateSilver is also just as funny. Some warning for language.
You just never know how something is going to hold up, or who you will run into down the line. There were some strange people in my StopNShop last night.
November 9, 2012
Dénouement
denouement |ˌdāno͞oˈmäN|nounthe final part of a play, movie, or narrative in which the strands of the plot are drawn together and matters are explained or resolved.• the climax of a chain of events, usually when something is decided or made clear: I waited by the eighteenth green to see the denouement.ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: French dénouement, from dénouer ‘unknot.’
I'll be back to posting on a more regular basis soon, but I am trying to make sense out of all of it, first. I can't fully seem to "unknot" for myself just yet. Odd story: I now teach at the same school I went to for part of my undergraduate degree. On Wednesday, one of my former college professors hugged me in the cafeteria. This woman was the first person to make me think of feminism. She made me wonder about our culture and language, the messages given to every woman everywhere about what it means to be a woman. Seeing me, she said, made her need to have a feminist celebration: historic numbers of women and pro-women people in Congress, Obama maintains his post, and all of the "rape thing" candidates defeated. Heck, Obama even defeated Justin Bieber! She was genuinely joyous. I want to be. There is a lot of good news for liberals, even if the race was a tight one. We should be celebrating and hugging in cafeterias, right?Still, something in all of this makes me nervous. Maybe it's the crash after a sugar high, but reading so much information about how Romney lost the women and that's why he lost the election. Romney lost the Latinos and that's why he lost the election. Romney lost the election and that's why the GOP needs to be revamped. My head is spinning just a little bit faster than the spin. I feel like there's another shoe somewhere just waiting to drop. In quiet places, you'll start to see who the GOP is blaming. I watched Fox for part of election night. Even before the election was called for Obama, the Fox crew was talking about how they had such "slim pickings" during the primaries. They were throwing Romney under the bus before there was actually even a bus. But, some of this will land on Gov. Chris Christie and his reaction to Obama during hurricane Sandy. Here are 5 excuses that are already circulating. Some of this is also Carl Rove losing his ever-loving mind with stuff like this. And he's not the only one. Hannity is also talking about getting the government you deserve one moment, and then this. This makes me worry. The bottom line, for me, is that a party like the GOP, looking this lost, can only be bad news. I know that they will come up with something, but I worry about what that might be. Maybe we should just watch some Rachel Maddow. She's got something good here.
I'll be back to posting on a more regular basis soon, but I am trying to make sense out of all of it, first. I can't fully seem to "unknot" for myself just yet. Odd story: I now teach at the same school I went to for part of my undergraduate degree. On Wednesday, one of my former college professors hugged me in the cafeteria. This woman was the first person to make me think of feminism. She made me wonder about our culture and language, the messages given to every woman everywhere about what it means to be a woman. Seeing me, she said, made her need to have a feminist celebration: historic numbers of women and pro-women people in Congress, Obama maintains his post, and all of the "rape thing" candidates defeated. Heck, Obama even defeated Justin Bieber! She was genuinely joyous. I want to be. There is a lot of good news for liberals, even if the race was a tight one. We should be celebrating and hugging in cafeterias, right?Still, something in all of this makes me nervous. Maybe it's the crash after a sugar high, but reading so much information about how Romney lost the women and that's why he lost the election. Romney lost the Latinos and that's why he lost the election. Romney lost the election and that's why the GOP needs to be revamped. My head is spinning just a little bit faster than the spin. I feel like there's another shoe somewhere just waiting to drop. In quiet places, you'll start to see who the GOP is blaming. I watched Fox for part of election night. Even before the election was called for Obama, the Fox crew was talking about how they had such "slim pickings" during the primaries. They were throwing Romney under the bus before there was actually even a bus. But, some of this will land on Gov. Chris Christie and his reaction to Obama during hurricane Sandy. Here are 5 excuses that are already circulating. Some of this is also Carl Rove losing his ever-loving mind with stuff like this. And he's not the only one. Hannity is also talking about getting the government you deserve one moment, and then this. This makes me worry. The bottom line, for me, is that a party like the GOP, looking this lost, can only be bad news. I know that they will come up with something, but I worry about what that might be. Maybe we should just watch some Rachel Maddow. She's got something good here.
November 6, 2012
Huh? Whaaaa?
The Daily Beast has not one, but two articles today about Romney's loss. They're still singing his swan song a little early, for my taste.
November 3, 2012
Hi Mom!
The unlikely superstar of this election seems to be Nate Silver. We've talked about him here before. He's the statistician over at the New York Times. He write the fivethirtyeight blogs. I don't mean to be rude, but I can't remember a time when a statistician was this popular. Why are we talking about him?
For starters, he was right about the election the last time, and so his predictions about how 2012 might go down are hotly sought after. Time and time again, he has said in this cycle, the math favors Obama once again. He has said this in the face of Romney-edged polls from Rasmussen and Gallup. He's said this so many times, that he has been accused of being a mouth-piece for the left. After being attacked for, what he believes to be, just presenting the probabilities, something strange happened: Nate Silver became the news instead of just being the guy who reports it.
Business Insider is reporting on Silver's assertion that political pundits are for entertainment purpose only. The Awl is blogging about his Twitter war with Joe Scarborough. You know you've made it when the Onion makes fun of you. Dylan Byers has started a clock on what he believes to be Mr. Silver's 15 minutes of fame. According to Byers, Silver is a "one term celebrity" who is probably "highly over-rated." He says that for all of his confidence, he appears to be hedging a bit for this election, which is too close to call. Saying this, I might add, without any sense of irony about what the words "hedging" and "too close call" actually mean.
Really? Why are the politicos of this election cycle making such a fuss about this one guy who claims to be able to do math in circles around you? It's like a Revenge of the Nerds story creeped into the political arena. Among the spectacled, this guy is still the biggest geek, and they just have to talk about him. They can't help themselves. Everyone has something to say about Nate Silver!
And now, I guess, so did I. Crap. Hi Mom!
3 moreshopping blogging days until the election.
For starters, he was right about the election the last time, and so his predictions about how 2012 might go down are hotly sought after. Time and time again, he has said in this cycle, the math favors Obama once again. He has said this in the face of Romney-edged polls from Rasmussen and Gallup. He's said this so many times, that he has been accused of being a mouth-piece for the left. After being attacked for, what he believes to be, just presenting the probabilities, something strange happened: Nate Silver became the news instead of just being the guy who reports it.
Business Insider is reporting on Silver's assertion that political pundits are for entertainment purpose only. The Awl is blogging about his Twitter war with Joe Scarborough. You know you've made it when the Onion makes fun of you. Dylan Byers has started a clock on what he believes to be Mr. Silver's 15 minutes of fame. According to Byers, Silver is a "one term celebrity" who is probably "highly over-rated." He says that for all of his confidence, he appears to be hedging a bit for this election, which is too close to call. Saying this, I might add, without any sense of irony about what the words "hedging" and "too close call" actually mean.
Really? Why are the politicos of this election cycle making such a fuss about this one guy who claims to be able to do math in circles around you? It's like a Revenge of the Nerds story creeped into the political arena. Among the spectacled, this guy is still the biggest geek, and they just have to talk about him. They can't help themselves. Everyone has something to say about Nate Silver!
And now, I guess, so did I. Crap. Hi Mom!
3 more
November 2, 2012
Endorsements
It started last week, just ahead of the storm, a few newspapers started throwing their support behind each candidate. The first one that I noticed make headlines was the Salt Lake Tribune. This made national news because Utah's largest paper endorsed Obama over the first ever Mormon presidential candidate, Romney. If you read it carefully, the article reads more like "anyone but Mitt. Any of the Mitts are bad."
After that there was a flurry of papers that picked sides. The Washington Post seemed to be a bit happier about picking Obama. While they mentioned disappointments as well as successes during the President's first term, they still couched their endorsement in terms of "not Romney." Consider:
After that there was a flurry of papers that picked sides. The Washington Post seemed to be a bit happier about picking Obama. While they mentioned disappointments as well as successes during the President's first term, they still couched their endorsement in terms of "not Romney." Consider:
The sad answer is there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes. His unguarded expression of contempt for 47 percent of the population seems as sincere as anything else we’ve heard, but that’s only conjecture. At times he has advocated a muscular, John McCain-style foreign policy, but in the final presidential debate he positioned himself as a dove. Before he passionately supported a fetus’s right to life, he supported a woman’s right to abortion. His swings have been dramatic on gay rights, gun rights, health care, climate change and immigration. His ugly embrace of “self-deportation” during the Republican primary campaign, and his demolition of a primary opponent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for having left open a door of opportunity for illegal-immigrant children, bespeaks a willingness to say just about anything to win. Every politician changes his mind sometimes; you’d worry if not. But rarely has a politician gotten so far with only one evident immutable belief: his conviction in his own fitness for higher office.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for Obama as much as it smacks of the mandate against Romney.
Yesterday, I read that Bloomberg and The Economist have now also come in line with camp Obama. This is the group that was supposed to be clearly Romney home game advantage: the business world. And yet, their endorsements of Obama are really, once again, concerns about Romney's sharp turn to the right, and his "flip flopping."
By contrast, The NY Post endorsed has Romney. There rationale is very much a criticism of Obama as well as a support of Romney's plans for the next four years. This is closer to what I would have expected.
There is something else that lives in the middle. I would like to call it "Or else" politics. In this line of thinking, we should all endorse Romney because he can work with the other side. Obama, they say, tried to work with the other side and it didn't work. The Republican fillerbusters brought government to its knees. A Romney presidency with a Democratic House and Senate, however, would still get stuff done. The final analysis? Democrats are nicer. So in "Or Else" politics, you should vote for Romney so that the Republicans don't wreck the joint. Several papers have expressed concern, but go on to endorse Romney after
... offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.
Wow. Did I read that right?
Help! Our government is being held hostage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)