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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)