It feels like it's been a slow news week. Is it me? Nothing is really catching my eye about the election. Oh, sure! Stuff is happening: the Romney team is campaigning all over the place and if you're looking for him, you can use your smartphone. The President is busy, as well. He's avoiding world leaders by taking the stage at the UN General Assembly. Mostly, everyone and their grandmother has a poll that they're following or discrediting, depending on where your guy lands. But, in general, everyone seemed to have their "foot in mouth" disease under control.
This morning I woke up to find that Governor Romney is actually kinda predicting he will lose the debates. I found this odd. Specifically, the campaign is trying to lower expectations for the debates. The memo from Beth Myers, Senior Advisor, seems to imply a kind of "we will lose this battle and still win the war" frame of mind. It's interesting to me because I don't feel like I have seen the Romney camp win a lot of battles. Read it closely, though. Ms. Myers is saying something else, too. Not only is she conceding that her candidate doesn't have the experience or the finesse to do well in this setting, she is also saying that the President will have to attack to win. It's a challenge. She's trying to take the wind out of the sails before Obama's boat is even in the water. Interesting. By saying that the President will have to attack the Governor in order to win, she's provided the ultimate out for a Romney loss. Beautiful.
I want to write a whole lot more about debates and the media, but I will hold off until next week before the first one of this election cycle happens.
September 28, 2012
September 26, 2012
Thinkin' about entitlements
I gotta confess: I've been watching more than reading my news this week. I'm not sure why I've switched, and I will likely switch back. While watching the news, I have caught things like the Obama's interview on The View, Mitt's poorly received joke about airplane windows, and more than my fair share of football's replacement ref turmoil. (If that last link will poke you where you're sore, just skip it. I won't tell on you.)
Somewhere in all of that, I found myself watching the Rachel Maddow Show. I like TRMS. I know it is a remarkably liberal show, and I also know that it's really more about her personality than it is about the news bits she offers. On Monday night's show, she had this to say about the Senate race in Massachusetts. I think she is really onto something about both Massachusetts and the rest of the country during this election season. She talks about the fine art of "stoking" in elections.
See? Those people over there are getting something you need. They think they should just get it. They. That's a key word here. THEY. The only natural comeback for THEY language is US. THEY aren't like US. Entitlements are the new way of creating that "us vs. them" dynamic and that will keep everybody in-fighting for generations.
There's this really wonderful quote by William Sloane Coffin that goes like this, "Human unity is not something we are called on to create - only something we are called on to recognize." I just hope it isn't too late for that.
UPDATE: 9/26 - It ain't just me!
*The full transcript of Governor Romney's tape can be found here. And in it, he mentions Professor Warren, by the way. Makes you wonder if Senator Brown is taking his cues from that video. The emphasis is mine.
Somewhere in all of that, I found myself watching the Rachel Maddow Show. I like TRMS. I know it is a remarkably liberal show, and I also know that it's really more about her personality than it is about the news bits she offers. On Monday night's show, she had this to say about the Senate race in Massachusetts. I think she is really onto something about both Massachusetts and the rest of the country during this election season. She talks about the fine art of "stoking" in elections.
So Scott Brown said a nasty thing. That's pretty bad, but it isn't over. It got worse. If you read this New York Times article, supporters of Scott Brown where doing war chanting and the Tomahawk chop to show their solidarity. It's disgusting and racist, but not really the heart of the issue.
The real theme of the day is not just race, I think. The theme of the day is "entitlement." Senator Brown rails on Prof. Warren because she checked a box. Checking that box put her in a category that may have helped her in ways that many other people don't get help. He says the issue is about character; she doesn't "look" Native American, so she's lied to get something she doesn't deserve. It's fancy wording, but it is still about entitlements. It's about asking the voters to look at Ms. Warren and resent her for trying to skip steps on the advancement ladders. You're supposed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, Ms. Warren. You aren't supposed to take handouts, much less if you're cheating to get them. What do you think you are entitled to?
I am not completely sure how to extend this thought to be a meme, but I do see the issue of entitlements quite a bit. Here's how it's running: Governor Romney is secretly taped at a fund raiser saying some pretty nasty things about 47% of the population of America. Now, to be fair, I don't think the part about how they won't vote for him is probably not that controversial. The issue with his statements, I think, begin when he says:
The real theme of the day is not just race, I think. The theme of the day is "entitlement." Senator Brown rails on Prof. Warren because she checked a box. Checking that box put her in a category that may have helped her in ways that many other people don't get help. He says the issue is about character; she doesn't "look" Native American, so she's lied to get something she doesn't deserve. It's fancy wording, but it is still about entitlements. It's about asking the voters to look at Ms. Warren and resent her for trying to skip steps on the advancement ladders. You're supposed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, Ms. Warren. You aren't supposed to take handouts, much less if you're cheating to get them. What do you think you are entitled to?
I am not completely sure how to extend this thought to be a meme, but I do see the issue of entitlements quite a bit. Here's how it's running: Governor Romney is secretly taped at a fund raiser saying some pretty nasty things about 47% of the population of America. Now, to be fair, I don't think the part about how they won't vote for him is probably not that controversial. The issue with his statements, I think, begin when he says:
All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. *
See? Those people over there are getting something you need. They think they should just get it. They. That's a key word here. THEY. The only natural comeback for THEY language is US. THEY aren't like US. Entitlements are the new way of creating that "us vs. them" dynamic and that will keep everybody in-fighting for generations.
There's this really wonderful quote by William Sloane Coffin that goes like this, "Human unity is not something we are called on to create - only something we are called on to recognize." I just hope it isn't too late for that.
UPDATE: 9/26 - It ain't just me!
*The full transcript of Governor Romney's tape can be found here. And in it, he mentions Professor Warren, by the way. Makes you wonder if Senator Brown is taking his cues from that video. The emphasis is mine.
September 24, 2012
Just the facts, ma'am!
I love classic television. Honestly, mostly I love TV. It's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch late night television, or any of those back to back to back marathons of CSI or House or... anything really. One summer, back when I was in high school, I watched a bunch of Dragnet. If you don't know the show, you may still know the line that was made famous by the show, "Just the fact, ma'am." Every spoof of every police show that followed had a street-wizened equivalent to Friday looking for "just the facts."
The problem is that Jack Webb's Sgt. Joe Friday never actually said those words.
This election cycle, the fact checkers of the media have become a . Much like our Sgt. Friday's catch phrase, the inclination has been that if you repeat a lie often and loudly, it becomes enough like truth to pass the sniff test. Some of the biggest moments in Republican and Democratic stump speeches are entirely comprised of this same kinds of mushy truths. We didn't get a beauty of a phrase like "Lyin' Ryan" for nothing!
One of the points that was contested on both sides of the aisle came from Senator Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC. This is a good timeline. In his speech, Mr. Ryan suggested that President Obama had broken a promise to the people of Janesville, WI by not saving a GM plant that he visited. Specifically, Ryan said:
The problem with that statement is that the plant closed in December of 2008. Below is the photo of the closing ceremony for that plant. Notice the date?
So, we're done here, right? Ryan is wrong. Well, not quite. It would seem that the plant kept some employees through April of 2009, as there were a few outstanding orders for parts and those orders were filled in Janesville. That date was on President Obama's watch. Even if GM made the decision to close the plant in February 2008, there were still people in the building over a year later. If there were still employees, the logic goes, the plant wasn't closed. GM says the plant is on stand-by, so maybe there's still hope. It would seem Ryan is not wrong, right?
Well, what about the actual words from President Obama's speech. Let's look at those to see if there was a promise in the first place.
I don't see the word "promise."
So what the heck is going on here? Is this another Jack Webb issue where it seems like it might be true so it is?
I have a 7 year old daughter and sometimes when you say something like "if we have time, we'll stop for ice cream" she will take that as a promise. I feel like it was taken as a promise every time Obama said the name Janesville in just that same way. Ryan tried to save the plant. The unions tried to save the plant. I am not sure how much sway the President could or should have had to make GM change their mind about what was happening at that location. This business about how there were still employees at the shop in April 2009, seems like grasping at straws. The remaining staff were there to close the operations down. The concert was over but Elvis had not yet left the building.
With facts like these, who needs lies? If you were trying to figure out the truth, you'd likely have to ask yourself two questions. Where do you start? More importantly, where do you stop?
On the Media has a really wonderful Podcast on the topic, if you have the time to listen. You can cut to the chase a bit here, too. During an interview with the New Yorker's Peter Cranby on how to do a good job of fact checking, he spoke of "reporting in reverse." In other words, he says, "we take stories apart and try to put them back together again." I agree with Mr. Cranby, but can't help but wonder what to do if there are missing pieces, or just as likely, a few bits left over at the bottom of the box.
The problem is that Jack Webb's Sgt. Joe Friday never actually said those words.
This election cycle, the fact checkers of the media have become a . Much like our Sgt. Friday's catch phrase, the inclination has been that if you repeat a lie often and loudly, it becomes enough like truth to pass the sniff test. Some of the biggest moments in Republican and Democratic stump speeches are entirely comprised of this same kinds of mushy truths. We didn't get a beauty of a phrase like "Lyin' Ryan" for nothing!
One of the points that was contested on both sides of the aisle came from Senator Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC. This is a good timeline. In his speech, Mr. Ryan suggested that President Obama had broken a promise to the people of Janesville, WI by not saving a GM plant that he visited. Specifically, Ryan said:
“Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year.”
The problem with that statement is that the plant closed in December of 2008. Below is the photo of the closing ceremony for that plant. Notice the date?
So, we're done here, right? Ryan is wrong. Well, not quite. It would seem that the plant kept some employees through April of 2009, as there were a few outstanding orders for parts and those orders were filled in Janesville. That date was on President Obama's watch. Even if GM made the decision to close the plant in February 2008, there were still people in the building over a year later. If there were still employees, the logic goes, the plant wasn't closed. GM says the plant is on stand-by, so maybe there's still hope. It would seem Ryan is not wrong, right?
Well, what about the actual words from President Obama's speech. Let's look at those to see if there was a promise in the first place.
”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”
I don't see the word "promise."
So what the heck is going on here? Is this another Jack Webb issue where it seems like it might be true so it is?
I have a 7 year old daughter and sometimes when you say something like "if we have time, we'll stop for ice cream" she will take that as a promise. I feel like it was taken as a promise every time Obama said the name Janesville in just that same way. Ryan tried to save the plant. The unions tried to save the plant. I am not sure how much sway the President could or should have had to make GM change their mind about what was happening at that location. This business about how there were still employees at the shop in April 2009, seems like grasping at straws. The remaining staff were there to close the operations down. The concert was over but Elvis had not yet left the building.
With facts like these, who needs lies? If you were trying to figure out the truth, you'd likely have to ask yourself two questions. Where do you start? More importantly, where do you stop?
On the Media has a really wonderful Podcast on the topic, if you have the time to listen. You can cut to the chase a bit here, too. During an interview with the New Yorker's Peter Cranby on how to do a good job of fact checking, he spoke of "reporting in reverse." In other words, he says, "we take stories apart and try to put them back together again." I agree with Mr. Cranby, but can't help but wonder what to do if there are missing pieces, or just as likely, a few bits left over at the bottom of the box.
September 23, 2012
Tapas, smaller bytes
I keep finding small tidbits about and through this election that I want to share. These are some of the smaller bytes from the Cache o' the Day.
1) I love this so much! It's an interactive feature from the NY Times where you can see which words where used most during each of the two national conventions. Click on one of the bubble, scroll down and enjoy the excerpt, or just admire the color percentages. No matter how you look at it, you have to love when images do the work for you.
2) This video is from CNN's Reliable Sources. It's a conversation with Bob Woodward about the Romney video. He coins the phrase "the daily food fight" and I think that is remarkably smart.
3) Here's the highlight reel of Governor Romney's Daily Food Fight. It's from the LA Times, so we know it is a pretty left leaning source. I put it here, not to further bash a bruised campaign, but to highlight this idea that Mr. Woodward examines in the above video. Maybe the media has become overly concerned with the idiocy that would come from following anyone 24/7.
1) I love this so much! It's an interactive feature from the NY Times where you can see which words where used most during each of the two national conventions. Click on one of the bubble, scroll down and enjoy the excerpt, or just admire the color percentages. No matter how you look at it, you have to love when images do the work for you.
2) This video is from CNN's Reliable Sources. It's a conversation with Bob Woodward about the Romney video. He coins the phrase "the daily food fight" and I think that is remarkably smart.
September 21, 2012
September 19, 2012
Double Rainbow! What does it mean?
Yesterday, I posted about the Romney videos that have landed the Republican candidate in a whole bunch of hot water. If this blog is really supposed to be about what the media contributes to an election, than I think I need to take a step back and talk about this from a thematic point of view.
What does Mr. Romney say at a time like this? What is his message to get this back in his favor? Today, most of the news outlets that said anything about the videos were talking about it in terms of damage control. In terms of damage control, what are the common themes that tickle out of this conversation? One thing that I noticed is that Camp Romney is trying to spin this to be about who could help the poor more. Sprinting back to the familiar territory of economic know-how, Mr. Romney said that it is President Obama's tenure that has left so many Americans on welfare. All of these themes are back on message. "Obama created this ditch. I was only pointing at it."
Interestingly enough, Camp Romney has also taken this opportunity to remind us that President Obama is a socialist, or at least how they define socialism.
Let's take a closer look at what the talking heads are saying Mr. Romney said. What I mean to look at is how are the media are paraphrasing the video. I liked "parasitic freeloaders," but that's just me. Mind your meme! What are they really saying here, again? The media is once again repeating the idea that Mr. Romney is out of touch. Here is a spoiled billionaire talking to other (probably) spoiled billionaires and none of them really understand what middle-class means. While it isn't a new theme, "Mitt doesn't get it" isn't dying anytime soon. We were all asked to learn the word "plutocracy." Am I the only one who had to look it up?
The real problem for Mr. Romney is that it isn't just the so-called liberal media that is aghast at the comments from these videos. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan jumped on a "Mitt isn't president material" bandwagons with her column today. Without a hint of apology, Ms. Noonan says, "This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything."
I have to confess this is all very unnerving to me. I can't help but feel that in a election that was supposed to be a Republican landslide, the victory doesn't seem so slam-dunk. I have read more than a few "this isn't working" comments, and more than a handful of Republicans have started to back away from Mr. Romney out of fear for their own elections. I wonder what will happen next! There are 48 days left until we pick our next president. Who would have pegged ol' money-bags himself to be the underdog.
--------
plutocracy |plo͞oˈtäkrÉ™sÄ“|noun ( pl. plutocracies )government by the wealthy.• a country or society governed in this way.• an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.DERIVATIVESplutocratic |ËŒplo͞otəˈkratik|adjective,plutocratically |ËŒplo͞otəˈkratiklÄ“|adverbORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos ‘wealth’ +kratos ‘strength, authority.’
What does Mr. Romney say at a time like this? What is his message to get this back in his favor? Today, most of the news outlets that said anything about the videos were talking about it in terms of damage control. In terms of damage control, what are the common themes that tickle out of this conversation? One thing that I noticed is that Camp Romney is trying to spin this to be about who could help the poor more. Sprinting back to the familiar territory of economic know-how, Mr. Romney said that it is President Obama's tenure that has left so many Americans on welfare. All of these themes are back on message. "Obama created this ditch. I was only pointing at it."
Interestingly enough, Camp Romney has also taken this opportunity to remind us that President Obama is a socialist, or at least how they define socialism.
Let's take a closer look at what the talking heads are saying Mr. Romney said. What I mean to look at is how are the media are paraphrasing the video. I liked "parasitic freeloaders," but that's just me. Mind your meme! What are they really saying here, again? The media is once again repeating the idea that Mr. Romney is out of touch. Here is a spoiled billionaire talking to other (probably) spoiled billionaires and none of them really understand what middle-class means. While it isn't a new theme, "Mitt doesn't get it" isn't dying anytime soon. We were all asked to learn the word "plutocracy." Am I the only one who had to look it up?
The real problem for Mr. Romney is that it isn't just the so-called liberal media that is aghast at the comments from these videos. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan jumped on a "Mitt isn't president material" bandwagons with her column today. Without a hint of apology, Ms. Noonan says, "This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything."
I have to confess this is all very unnerving to me. I can't help but feel that in a election that was supposed to be a Republican landslide, the victory doesn't seem so slam-dunk. I have read more than a few "this isn't working" comments, and more than a handful of Republicans have started to back away from Mr. Romney out of fear for their own elections. I wonder what will happen next! There are 48 days left until we pick our next president. Who would have pegged ol' money-bags himself to be the underdog.
--------
plutocracy |plo͞oˈtäkrÉ™sÄ“|noun ( pl. plutocracies )government by the wealthy.• a country or society governed in this way.• an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.DERIVATIVESplutocratic |ËŒplo͞otəˈkratik|adjective,plutocratically |ËŒplo͞otəˈkratiklÄ“|adverbORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos ‘wealth’ +kratos ‘strength, authority.’
September 18, 2012
Must be Tuesday
Mitt Romney's campaign is imploding again; must be Tuesday.
Let's try to keep this in order.
On Monday morning, I was told that we were about to meet the NEW, new Mitt Romney. Not to be confused with the confused over-talking weird Mitt from the week before. Oh no! This was a man who had seen things, been places, and over-shared about what he wears to bed. This Mitt was going back to the original Mitt. If you can't keep 'em straight, don't worry too much. Retooling your campaign at this stage of the game made a few people nervous. This was really his way of saying that he needed to get back to his strong suit. He needs to return to talking about the economy. Money. Getting people back to work! This is his comfort zone.
Just as the picture was starting to look like a new vision for Mitt, a video surfaced that made the message of the beginning of the day look like a whole lotta wasted effort. The first thing published from the video was an excerpt that depicted Governor Romney saying this:
Romney also said that Palestine wasn't interested in peace and that as president, he wouldn't pursue that track. He said Obama made the US look weak in the Middle East. He said things about China. He said that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. And while his number isn't wrong, setting your sights on the elderly, and extremely low wage earners is not fair. Of course, that didn't stop him from talking. Man, he just talked and talked and at the same time dug a hole straight through his campaign.
When the story broke, you'd think he would back pedal like a crazy man, right? Well, if you did think that, you've not been following the GOP's top pick for president. To borrow a phrase from last week, Romney "doubled down" on the comments he made. He said that they were off the cuff, and unscripted. Yes, once again, Mr. Romney said something before he could really think it through.
While not from news sites, I really like this source for the stats on who is and isn't paying their federal taxes.
Let's try to keep this in order.
On Monday morning, I was told that we were about to meet the NEW, new Mitt Romney. Not to be confused with the confused over-talking weird Mitt from the week before. Oh no! This was a man who had seen things, been places, and over-shared about what he wears to bed. This Mitt was going back to the original Mitt. If you can't keep 'em straight, don't worry too much. Retooling your campaign at this stage of the game made a few people nervous. This was really his way of saying that he needed to get back to his strong suit. He needs to return to talking about the economy. Money. Getting people back to work! This is his comfort zone.
Just as the picture was starting to look like a new vision for Mitt, a video surfaced that made the message of the beginning of the day look like a whole lotta wasted effort. The first thing published from the video was an excerpt that depicted Governor Romney saying this:
“There are 47 per cent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement,”....
Romney also said that Palestine wasn't interested in peace and that as president, he wouldn't pursue that track. He said Obama made the US look weak in the Middle East. He said things about China. He said that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. And while his number isn't wrong, setting your sights on the elderly, and extremely low wage earners is not fair. Of course, that didn't stop him from talking. Man, he just talked and talked and at the same time dug a hole straight through his campaign.
When the story broke, you'd think he would back pedal like a crazy man, right? Well, if you did think that, you've not been following the GOP's top pick for president. To borrow a phrase from last week, Romney "doubled down" on the comments he made. He said that they were off the cuff, and unscripted. Yes, once again, Mr. Romney said something before he could really think it through.
While not from news sites, I really like this source for the stats on who is and isn't paying their federal taxes.
September 16, 2012
The State of the News, more thoughts
I was reading the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism's State of the News Media. As a part of my class, I was asked to pull out 5 ideas and chat them up here. The first one you'll find over on the Facebook post just before this one.
Reading the article, I was mostly intrigued by the idea that 27% of the population are turning to their smartphones for news. Let me be clear, I teach technology, so the idea that people were looking no further than the palm of their hands for news was not actually news. I was struck by this idea because I am guilty of it myself.
My daughter does karate and flute lessons. That means that I find myself sitting in more than a few lobbies while she is mastering the art of one or the other of those things. To pass the time, I will usually spend a block of time on CNN or something similar. In the lobby of the car dealership, while I wait for my oil change, I read about turmoil in Africa and the Middle East. The irony is not lost on me. It is easy for me to read the news during these blocks of in-between times because I would never leave my house without my phone. It is conceivable that I would forget the newspaper on my way out the door.We're all living in such a "hurry up and wait" world, that news reading represents stolen moments just as much as it is about intentionally finding news. This is a trend of convenience. Taken in this light, however, the d because the opportunities to access news have increased. I can grab news on my phone or my home laptop or my work PC. "No matter the device, digital news consumption continued upward in 2011," Pew claims.
The boost behind that overall growth came at CNN, which was up 16% in prime time to a median of 654,000 viewers. And MSNBC was up 20% during the daytime. Fox News Channel was the only one of the three main news channels to experience a second straight year of declines. It ended 2011 down 3% in prime time and 2% in daytime. Fox remained the clear leader over all, though, with a median prime time audience of 1.9 million, making 2011 its 10th straight year of ratings dominance.
Another interesting point comes from the fact that people are going directly to web sources for news media and then there seems to be some brand loyalty. The article also mentioned that "News viewership on television grew in unexpected venues. At the three traditional broadcast television networks, news audiences grew 4.5%, the first uptick in a decade. At the local level, audiences grew in both morning and late evening, the first growth in five years." I have to wonder if, people also like me, are flipping on the TV for the follow-up for whatever I read on my phone.
I almost always turn to CNN for my national news. It would seem that statistically, I am not alone.
Reading the article, I was mostly intrigued by the idea that 27% of the population are turning to their smartphones for news. Let me be clear, I teach technology, so the idea that people were looking no further than the palm of their hands for news was not actually news. I was struck by this idea because I am guilty of it myself.
My daughter does karate and flute lessons. That means that I find myself sitting in more than a few lobbies while she is mastering the art of one or the other of those things. To pass the time, I will usually spend a block of time on CNN or something similar. In the lobby of the car dealership, while I wait for my oil change, I read about turmoil in Africa and the Middle East. The irony is not lost on me. It is easy for me to read the news during these blocks of in-between times because I would never leave my house without my phone. It is conceivable that I would forget the newspaper on my way out the door.We're all living in such a "hurry up and wait" world, that news reading represents stolen moments just as much as it is about intentionally finding news. This is a trend of convenience. Taken in this light, however, the d because the opportunities to access news have increased. I can grab news on my phone or my home laptop or my work PC. "No matter the device, digital news consumption continued upward in 2011," Pew claims.
The boost behind that overall growth came at CNN, which was up 16% in prime time to a median of 654,000 viewers. And MSNBC was up 20% during the daytime. Fox News Channel was the only one of the three main news channels to experience a second straight year of declines. It ended 2011 down 3% in prime time and 2% in daytime. Fox remained the clear leader over all, though, with a median prime time audience of 1.9 million, making 2011 its 10th straight year of ratings dominance.
Another interesting point comes from the fact that people are going directly to web sources for news media and then there seems to be some brand loyalty. The article also mentioned that "News viewership on television grew in unexpected venues. At the three traditional broadcast television networks, news audiences grew 4.5%, the first uptick in a decade. At the local level, audiences grew in both morning and late evening, the first growth in five years." I have to wonder if, people also like me, are flipping on the TV for the follow-up for whatever I read on my phone.
I almost always turn to CNN for my national news. It would seem that statistically, I am not alone.
The only upside-down party hat on the above graph appears to be newspapers. I have to be honest with you, I have a weird nostalgia for newspapers. I don't buy them anymore, but I used to pick up a paper as a part of my daily commute. I took a bus into downtown Hartford for a number of years. Reading on the bus felt like the right thing to do. Business suit: check. Commuter bus: check. The paper and a styrofoam cup of coffee? Usually, check. At some point, I stopped taking the bus and got a smartphone and a travel mug.
September 14, 2012
Like This If You Facebook'd Today
We were talking about the impact of Facebook on this election in class on Monday. I think there were about 4 or 5 of us that said that some of their news came from Facebook. I offer this as Exhibit A in the discussion on influence.
In a recent journal article in Nature, James Fowler from the University of California, San Diego paired up with Cameron Marlow over at Facebook to figure out if social networks can create real world behaviors. They had a very specific behavior in mind, and a very specific target to aim for: your friends.
“The network is key,” Fowler said. “If we want to make the world a better place on a massive scale, we should focus not just on changing a person’s behavior, but also on utilizing the network to influence that person’s friends,” he said.
So how did it work? They randomly selected a group of people (with the blessing of the Facebook people) to target with different kinds of notifications. Some people saw a message that said "you should vote and check here to find where," while others saw that same message but with photos of friends who voted included. Still, a third group, got no messages at all. Ready for the shocker? People who got messages were more likely to vote. And of that group, the people who got messages accompanied by photos of other buddies who also voted, came to the polls in droves.
In the ninth edition of the the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism: the State of the News Media noted that there are a handful of companies like Facebook, Amazon and Google that are gunning to become our everything digital. Our overwhelming use of these products also give these company all of the data they would ever dream to want about our personal lives. The advertising dollars are following you on Facebook. The Pew report says, "By 2015, roughly one out of every five display ad dollars is expected to go to Facebook." They are betting a lot of money on the idea that we will buy what we see on the sidelines of our social media.
Just because we are using Facebook to make decisions about things like voting, and perhaps purchases, doesn't mean that we're using it for our primary source for news. Still according to Pew:
Maybe there's hope.
More on politics tomorrow.
In a recent journal article in Nature, James Fowler from the University of California, San Diego paired up with Cameron Marlow over at Facebook to figure out if social networks can create real world behaviors. They had a very specific behavior in mind, and a very specific target to aim for: your friends.
“The network is key,” Fowler said. “If we want to make the world a better place on a massive scale, we should focus not just on changing a person’s behavior, but also on utilizing the network to influence that person’s friends,” he said.
So how did it work? They randomly selected a group of people (with the blessing of the Facebook people) to target with different kinds of notifications. Some people saw a message that said "you should vote and check here to find where," while others saw that same message but with photos of friends who voted included. Still, a third group, got no messages at all. Ready for the shocker? People who got messages were more likely to vote. And of that group, the people who got messages accompanied by photos of other buddies who also voted, came to the polls in droves.
I can't tell you that I am surprised. I am still influenced by my peer group. I feel so manipulated! At the ripe old age of noneofyourbusiness, I realize that I probably would still do something just because my friends are doing it, too.
----
----
In the ninth edition of the the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism: the State of the News Media noted that there are a handful of companies like Facebook, Amazon and Google that are gunning to become our everything digital. Our overwhelming use of these products also give these company all of the data they would ever dream to want about our personal lives. The advertising dollars are following you on Facebook. The Pew report says, "By 2015, roughly one out of every five display ad dollars is expected to go to Facebook." They are betting a lot of money on the idea that we will buy what we see on the sidelines of our social media.
Just because we are using Facebook to make decisions about things like voting, and perhaps purchases, doesn't mean that we're using it for our primary source for news. Still according to Pew:
Social media are important but not overwhelming drivers of news, at least not yet. Some 133 million Americans, or 54% of the online U.S. population, are now active users on Facebook (out of 850 million monthly active users globally).2They also spend an average of seven hours there a month, 14 times the amount of time people spend on average on the most popular news sites.3 And the number of Twitter users grew 32% last year to around 24 million active users in the U.S. (500 million total accounts worldwide), the company reports.
Maybe there's hope.
More on politics tomorrow.
September 13, 2012
Be anything, but don't be doubtful.
Things aren't going so well for Mitt Romney these past few days, by any measure. The general media consensus seems to be that he is losing the election. The conservatives have started a drum beat designed to give him some pointers and an ultimatum. He got some sound(bite) advice from Sarah Palin.
And then the bottom fell out.
There are really two things here that have caught my interest, as it relates to the media and the election.
And one more:
I wonder if this is the next wave of political cartooning. Although, some of those have been wonderful, too.
And then the bottom fell out.
Protests turned violent in Libya on Tuesday night. A group of heavily armed men attacked the consulate in Benghazi. When the smoke cleared, 4 Americans where dead including American Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Shortly before the smoke cleared, Romney was at a microphone condemning the Obama's administrations first response to the violence. The problem was, the statement he was condemning did not come from Obama. It came from the US Embassy in Cairo. In fact, the statement in question happened *before* the violence cost the lives of the Americans at the consulate. Romney's comments come a full 2 hours before the end of the pre-determined pause in campaign statements in deference to the 11th anniversary of 9/11. There's a really good timeline here.
To recap, Romney spoke before the end of the 9/11 "campaign embargo." And when he did speak, he got it all wrong. And then, in an amazing display of ... something, Mr. Romney reiterated his known to be false statements, the next morning at another press conference. I am sure that went over really well.
The Words
The language from the talking heads that has popped up again and again around Romney's criticism all reflect images of gambling. He went all in. He doubled down on the criticism of the Obama administration. It can't help but make you wonder if they're going somewhere with this. It doesn't just feel like a coincidence. Could it be because of the Clinton speech from the DNC saying that Romney will "double down on trickle down?" I might want to watch this over the next few months.The Pictures
The image above is just one example of the pictures I am talking about. I don't mean the images of the violence, I mean the press photos of Romney smiling paired with phrases that are meant to plant a seed of doubt around Romney because of this gaffe. These are not coming from news sources, but are being distributed via shares on Facebook. Here's another one:And one more:
I wonder if this is the next wave of political cartooning. Although, some of those have been wonderful, too.
September 12, 2012
Open Source Journalism, sort'a
This article has a great discussion with the Editor over at the Guardian. He has all sorts of wonderful, glowing, positive things to say
about the effects of open journalism on their media outlet. He says, “The Guardian’s openness has
allowed it to improve its coverage and what it can offer readers, even with
limited staff. ‘Half of a day of a cricket match will now be written by the readers,’ [Alan] Rusbridger said. “It’s double what we could do with just a couple of
journalists.’”
I am really intrigued by the idea
of open journalism. As a concept,
I think it is amazing and can only do wonderful things to how we
experience a story. It gives everyone a chance to tell their truth and offer a more broad view of the events that are unfolding. I am also
wildly skeptical of letting just anyone contribute to reporting the news. I can’t help
myself; my eyebrow goes up when I see that they are celebrating the fact that
their comments have increased by 66% over the year.
I should explain that I grew up
believing that journalism and reporters are a different breed. I thought the primary requirements for
being a reporter were a wide-brimmed hat, a hard-boiled attitude, a notebook, a
smoking habit and the training to be completely impartial. I have come to learn that, apart from
the smoking habit, most of these are Hollywood myths. But still! The
NEWS! It’s supposed to have an
integrity to it that is unquestionable, right? These are trained professionals! They're ready to tell us all the news that's fit to print, right?
Oh, wait. The Guardian isn’t talking about news. They're talking about offering something different.
But “in our mindset, we are completely digital first,”
he explained. “We are a giant website with a small team dedicated to the
newspaper,” and the paper must reflect that, by offering analysis and
explanation rather than news.
September 11, 2012
Birth of a Blog
Hello World.
Look what I built! I didn’t build it all by myself. I am using a template created by Blogger, which I have
tweaked within an inch of its life.
I am standing on the backs of a lot of bloggers that came before
me. A great teacher has also inspired
me. Of course, I am making a bit
of a joke about this line of thought.
I want to share a little bit about me, and my odd
perspective on things. I am a
liberal. I am a feminist. I am a mom, a storyteller and a
teacher. Specifically, I teach computer science
at a local university.
I love visiting New Mexico. A few years ago, I had the opportunity
to see the ruins of a lost pueblo in Aztec. On my way out of town, I stopped at a gift shop. The
store was selling Storyteller dolls made by a local artist. Storyteller
dolls, if you aren’t familiar with them, are distinctly New Mexican pueblo
art. The doll is really a clay piece of pottery shaped like a woman with
children climbing on her lap to hear her tell stories. The real
storytellers were the primary way of conveying culture, myths and traditions
among the Cochiti people. As such, she is the gateway back through
time. She is both a kind of goddess and a mere mortal sharing her
truth. Looking at the dolls in the gift shop, I wondered about the
storytellers of our time. I think
to some extent, we’ve given that role over to the media. Increasingly, for me at least, my
storyteller of choice is the Internet. I rely on the information that I find online to shape my sense of the world as it is, as I hope it could be, and the role that I may or may not choose to play in it. It is a bit unnerving to realize the influence that it sways.
I am taking a class called Media in the 2012 Election and this is the product of that endeavor. What I hope to do here is share a little bit about what I
have found in my travels on the Internet as it relates to the presidential
election, the media in general, or stuff that makes me think about either of
those in a new way. I want to pick apart that influence. On the right
of this post you will see a list of my Stomping Grounds. I turn to these sites for news and "sort of news” most frequently. I also
follow suggested links from my Facebook friends. Of particular note are the links for On the Media and Jack
Shafer. I will be reading these religiously
for the purposes of this blog. I
also want to focus a little bit of attention to Romenesko.
I hope that you’ll come back often. Comment. Look around. Squat. Whatever. It’s friendly around here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)