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!
November 1, 2012
More Memental Stuff
Rather unattended, I posted a bit here a few days ago that talked about my favorite memes. I meant to come back and explain a bit more, but then Sandy happened. And that was not fun. Some interesting political stuff happened around the storm, and a few wonderful memes were also born.
Let's take a step back and talk a bit more about the meme: what is it and why are they important? In the simplest sense, a meme is a single unit of a cultural idea. A term originally coined by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene." Dawkin's intention was to describe how ideas move. Memes are supposed to be flexible, reproduce and continue to move through a culture. In this election, like every other, a new set of memes has emerged. I described some in that post I mentioned above. Another kind of meme that has taken the stage in this election is the Internet joke standard image with text pasted over. Take a look at the image above. The world of social media is covered in images just like this.
Nathan Jurgenson says that in this election, the meme has become a meme. The Internet joke picture has become a talking point for how each candidate is stacking up, in the big picture. As the popularity and importance of social media emerges in this election, so too does the new language of political discourse. In a 140 character world, the biggest punch in the smallest of spaces reigns supreme. This is how we talk politics today.
So, how does it work? Do these images change the course of politics? The answer is, they kind of don't work. For better or worse, these images don't seem to change anyone's mind about which candidate to champion. "The internet jokes are aimed at committed voters," according to Poynter. It's voters talking to voters, and not necessarily as scripted as the campaigns would like them to be. The campaigns themselves cannot control the message or the content. As a matter of fact, that "out of control" part of the message may actually be part of the appeal. As committed voters, the people who share these jokes already know the script.
If it is about committed voters talking to other committed voters, and no one's mind is substantively changed, why bother? Jurgenson says that memes serve a completely different purpose. Memes, like the one above, give people a bigger chance to participate in the political process. It's a way of voting again and again, using your Facebook wall, Tumblr or Twitter feed.
Smart. Scary, but smart.
Pass it on.
Let's take a step back and talk a bit more about the meme: what is it and why are they important? In the simplest sense, a meme is a single unit of a cultural idea. A term originally coined by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene." Dawkin's intention was to describe how ideas move. Memes are supposed to be flexible, reproduce and continue to move through a culture. In this election, like every other, a new set of memes has emerged. I described some in that post I mentioned above. Another kind of meme that has taken the stage in this election is the Internet joke standard image with text pasted over. Take a look at the image above. The world of social media is covered in images just like this.
Nathan Jurgenson says that in this election, the meme has become a meme. The Internet joke picture has become a talking point for how each candidate is stacking up, in the big picture. As the popularity and importance of social media emerges in this election, so too does the new language of political discourse. In a 140 character world, the biggest punch in the smallest of spaces reigns supreme. This is how we talk politics today.
So, how does it work? Do these images change the course of politics? The answer is, they kind of don't work. For better or worse, these images don't seem to change anyone's mind about which candidate to champion. "The internet jokes are aimed at committed voters," according to Poynter. It's voters talking to voters, and not necessarily as scripted as the campaigns would like them to be. The campaigns themselves cannot control the message or the content. As a matter of fact, that "out of control" part of the message may actually be part of the appeal. As committed voters, the people who share these jokes already know the script.
The Romney and Obama campaigns may have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on TV and Web ads, but spontaneous memes created by average people are stealing their thunder and arguably doing a better job of "messaging," says Vincent Harris, a Republican political consultant who ran the digital campaigns of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich at various times during the GOP primary.
If it is about committed voters talking to other committed voters, and no one's mind is substantively changed, why bother? Jurgenson says that memes serve a completely different purpose. Memes, like the one above, give people a bigger chance to participate in the political process. It's a way of voting again and again, using your Facebook wall, Tumblr or Twitter feed.
This memeified election thus marks a clash between exemplars of the top-down and the bottom-up: a Presidential race filled with official campaign releases and big-media discourse vs. social media. Presidential politics have long seemed too distant, a contest in which any individual voter has little say — especially if one doesn’t live in a swing state. That democracy-defining act of user-generated content — voting — is rigidly delimited and bureaucratic, but above all, it feels inconsequential. In contrast, social-media sites like Facebook and Twitter have deeply infiltrated our culture exactly because they provide voice.
Smart. Scary, but smart.
Pass it on.
All Hallows Eve
My daughter came home with a note today. Her school has been closed all week, and today was her first day back. The note was to remind me that her school will be closed again next week because it is a polling center, and the election is on Tuesday. The yellow paper had an image of an exaggerated check box, and the text itself seems to have been photocopied hundreds of times. This is the same note they send home every year. It's Tuesday! No classes for the kids! Don't forget to vote!
Like I could forget.
A strange thing is happening in the wake of hurricane Sandy. While Mitt struggles to make himself useful, his primary surrogate, Chris Christie is making the rounds of every news station out there saying how wonderful President Obama has been in all of this. It's a bit unnerving.
Trouble also seems to be brewing for Mr. Romney on two fronts. While it does look good for Mr. Romney to suspend campaigning in Ohio to instead do storm relief efforts... in Ohio, it doesn't do him any favors that a clip of an old debate is back to haunt him. It would seem that in a 2011 debate, Mr. Romney said that he would ditch FEMA in favor of shifting emergency responsibilities to the state or private sector. During his "storm efforts" he was asked no less than 6 times about this stance and he said nothing. Until today.
On the second front, Mr. Romney is taking some fire for a controversial ad attacking the automotive industry come-back. In the ad, Mr. Romney asserts that Jeep will be moving production to China because of President Obama. GM took exception. In a very public statement, the company said that Mr. Romney is not telling the truth. They said that this Romney move was "campaign politics at its cynical worst." He is still sticking by this message.
Mr. Romney. My daughter's school will be closed next week. This might be the wrong time for so much mess. The only saving grace for you will all of this nonsense is that the rest of the world is too busy worrying for our fellow Americans in New Jersey. Our hearts go out to them, and this is giving you a much smaller grasp on a media circus that readily admits that they don't have a clue what will happen next week.
I don't know about you, but I sure could use a laugh right about now. Here's the best thing I have seen all week. I love Joss. I have to. It's my generation.
Like I could forget.
A strange thing is happening in the wake of hurricane Sandy. While Mitt struggles to make himself useful, his primary surrogate, Chris Christie is making the rounds of every news station out there saying how wonderful President Obama has been in all of this. It's a bit unnerving.
Trouble also seems to be brewing for Mr. Romney on two fronts. While it does look good for Mr. Romney to suspend campaigning in Ohio to instead do storm relief efforts... in Ohio, it doesn't do him any favors that a clip of an old debate is back to haunt him. It would seem that in a 2011 debate, Mr. Romney said that he would ditch FEMA in favor of shifting emergency responsibilities to the state or private sector. During his "storm efforts" he was asked no less than 6 times about this stance and he said nothing. Until today.
On the second front, Mr. Romney is taking some fire for a controversial ad attacking the automotive industry come-back. In the ad, Mr. Romney asserts that Jeep will be moving production to China because of President Obama. GM took exception. In a very public statement, the company said that Mr. Romney is not telling the truth. They said that this Romney move was "campaign politics at its cynical worst." He is still sticking by this message.
Mr. Romney. My daughter's school will be closed next week. This might be the wrong time for so much mess. The only saving grace for you will all of this nonsense is that the rest of the world is too busy worrying for our fellow Americans in New Jersey. Our hearts go out to them, and this is giving you a much smaller grasp on a media circus that readily admits that they don't have a clue what will happen next week.
I don't know about you, but I sure could use a laugh right about now. Here's the best thing I have seen all week. I love Joss. I have to. It's my generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)