Interview with Aldon Hynes

Over the past week, I've exchanged a few emails with Aldon Hynes, writer of Orient Lodge, a blog that revolves around the intersections of technology and different parts of the world. Aldon had some interesting things to say, especially in regards to Twitter, and how the Atlantic should utilize the technology.

Aldon suggested that the Atlantic needs to start using Twitter immediately, as in yesterday:

So, what does this mean for the Atlantic? They need to start using Twitter. Immediately. Any time a new story goes up on their website, it should be posted on Twitter. Whenever they are working on a story, they should be searching, and asking for tips on Twitter. They should add more user generated video and pictures. Ideally, they should set things up so that they can cut to a good live feed as it is happening.

I'm with Mr. Hynes on this. I think that Twitter could end up being an invaluable tool, a piece of tech that could help revolutionize the way that we find our news. If the Atlantic could stay on the cutting edge of that, by keeping reporters in the field microblogging at all times, our website could become a go-to spot for people. While Twitter may seem like a novelty to mainstream America today, there is no saying where it could be in 2010 or 2012. There's a real, distinct possibility that Twitter could end up as the next MySpace or Facebook, the Social Networks du jour.

However, Aldon was also quick to point out that for all we know, Twitter could have become old news by 2012, maybe 2010. With the speed at which the internet moves and evolves, technologies are usually quickly used and then thrown aside for something better:

It is not clear if it will be Twitter, or some other microblogging service that will be the top microblog in 2012. Afterall, the hot social networks in 2004 were sites like Tribe, Friendster, and Orkut, each of which has floundered. A key area for microblogging with be better catergorization, aggregation, and searching.

In other words, microblogging isn't a proven, tested commodity and there is definite room for improvement. Still, if the Atlantic wants to stay on top of the situation and out in front of the pack, Twitter is the first step. Yet, it'll also be important to keep an ear to the ground and quickly adapt to whatever next big thing seems down the pipeline. When that new tech seems ready to launch, the Atlantic needs to be one of the prominant places that takes something of a risk and jumps on early. Early adopters may get burned in some aspects but there is an undeniable novelty appeal that will draw people to the site. If it seems like what The Atlantic thought was the next big thing ends up as the next Titantic, you just need to quickly move on and hope that your innovative and adventurous thinking has brought some people to the site that otherwise, wouldn't have been there.

Mr. Hynes clued in on Ron Paul as the candidate who seemed to be the most technologically advanced in the past election. While the American mainstream, the Joe Six Packs of the world, may have believed that Obama was running a cutting edge campaign in term of tech, it was Paul who really led the tech charge, which is unsurprising, given his popularity inside the online tech community.

Mr. Hynes:

With that, I've often criticized the 2008 candidates for lacking an 'invitation to innovate'. The Dean campaign had it. The Ron Paul campaign sort of had it. The Lamont campaign did a good job of it. Right now, it is the long shots that get the importance of the invitation to innovate, but I hope and believe that this will expand. I do believe that the Obama campaign came the closest to it in the 2008 cycle of the major candidates.

Obama certainly utilized a variety of different online platforms as organizing tools but he never really utilized technologies that weren't "mainstream". We'll probably look back at the 2008 election and recognize that between the two major party candidates, Obama was far out in front in terms of exciting use of the internet, yet it doesn't necessarily mean that he was using exciting parts of the internet. Sure, he utilized the social networks to meaningful end and used YouTube and the like as a means to spread ads, behind-the-scenes features and interviews, but in terms of trying out a tech that the typical everyday American doesn't use, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking. However, the question that is raised from this is: Does it matter that he used some cutting edge tech if it doesn't reach a lot of voters? I suppose, that the answer is a simple no. With the type of populist politics that Obama utilized in the campaign, the most important thing was reaching mass groups of people, not specialize niche markets.

More later with Aldon Hynes.

Quick Hit Thoughts on the Atlantic

Here are some quick hits to get the week's blog postings started.

-In class, we discussed the idea of adding another section to the Atlantic, a new Voices tab. I think there is some promise there. My only hang up lies in the fact that I'm not sure that we want the Atlantic to be a spot to be a proving ground for up and coming writers. Given the code that we established for the magazine and knowing its history, there would have to be a concerted process to ensure that the writers we put in the Voices section are, in fact, up to Atlantic standards. If that's the case, and there is an extensive amount of checking out a writer, why just not put them onto the regular Atlantic role?

-Do the new Voices write only for a Twitter feed initially and leave the more heavy duty analysis up to the more established writers? I understand the value of injecting new blood and life into the magazine but I don't think we should completely overhaul who we are just to cater to a more mainstream crowd. Part of what makes The Atlantic unique and interesting is its non-mainstream stance. How do we bring in new readers while not betraying our regulars?

-As for the entertainment industry side, we need to cover the ways that candidates reach out to get celebs backing them. Whether we want to admit it or not, a large population of our country look to celebrities as guides. In 2008, Obama killed on the celeb front. That video has been viewed 15 million times since the beginning of Feb. John McCain couldn't dream of matching that. How much of an effect do celebs have on an election?

More later.

Emergence of Twitter

With the emergence of Twitter, a new, exciting way to track the everyday workings of the most complex to the most mundane is that much closer. In other words, Big Brother isn't far off. Initially, Twitter emerged as a key component for keeping up to date with the tech industry, as some of the major figures regularly updated their feeds (such as Digg founder and major tech media figure Kevin Rose or This Week in Tech's stalwart Leo Laporte). Yet, the more popular it has become, the more other industries has latched on, leading stars such as Britney Spears to join the Twitter revolution.

In the past few days, Twitter has been prominently featured in the news as the fallout of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai continues to be explored. The issues lend themselves to an interesting conversation as to what exactly Twitter is. This blog, which I had never encountered before, suggests that Twitter has emerged as a viable form of legit journalism, a place to go for news. He admits that the sources may not be completely reliable on first glance, but Ingram wisely points out why that doesn't necessarily differ from other, more established services:

"Does that make those reports invalid? No. Obviously, no one wants a loved one to be worried by false reports. But at the same time, chaotic situations result in poor information flow — even to the “professional” journalists who are working at the scene. First-hand and second-hand reports on Twitter are no worse. Should anyone take them as gospel, or the final version of the events? No. Obviously, at some point someone has to check the facts, confirm reports, analyze the outcome, and so on. News reporting and journalism are much more of a process than they are a discrete thing. But as I have tried to argue before, Twitter reports are a valuable “first draft of history,” and that is a pretty good definition of the news."

I've got to agree with him there. While Twitter may not be the be-all-end-all of news sources, but as a place to get breaking news, its invaluable. The tech industry has been connected into the feed for a good time now and its been the place to go for all your tech related breaking news. People can send out a quick tweet with some brief info before they write up a larger report. Sure, its got some issues with scaling, leading to some confusion and frustration with new users, but given the correct funding and attention, Twitter could continue to revolutionize the way we receive our news. I can't help but feel that the horrific events in Mumbai may be a key turning point in Twitter's story.

The Change in Campaign Coverage

I found this quote, from the article Colin linked to, to be very interesting:

A political reporter not covering politics from the campaign trail? Political journalism legends such as Theodore H. White, author of "The Making of the President" books, would surely raise an eyebrow. But during the 2008 campaign, "the trail" never seemed less important – or perhaps it was just less populated. Although a definitive headcount is hard to come by, the number of reporters traveling with the candidates during this election cycle appeared to be down considerably. Major regional newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle and Cleveland's Plain Dealer, didn't bother to staff either campaign. USA Today, the largest-circulation paper in the nation, had only irregular representation, as did campaign stalwarts like Time and Newsweek. In fact, only five dailies – the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune – kept reporters on the road with Sens. McCain and Barack Obama in the campaign's closing months. The TV networks were still there, too, but most relied on young "embeds" rather than their frontline correspondents until the last few months.

What is the most important contribution of technology in terms of campaign coverage? It may be that a paper, a news channel, a blog need not have a reporter with the candidate's press team at all time. Unlike, say, the inspiration for this blog's title, the necessary existence of a moving collection of reporters tied to a campaign's hip isn't all that, well, necessary. Rather, news outlets, through use of the internet, can gain information nearly instantaneously without much effort. While many reporters, as the article points out, do somewhat regret not being able to cover the entirety of a 3 month, general election presidential campaign, the fact remains that they increasingly don't have to. They can sit in a cube and gain nearly as much information. 25 years ago, when the ideas of live video feeds had only scratched the surface, the being-there-in-the-moment reporting was invaluable. Now, why should a paper foot the bill for a reporter when it costs significantly less with almost no drop in actual news coverage to keep them glued to a computer screen and a couple of TV's?

Palin's Turkey Killin' Interviewin' Skills

What a moron. She needs to get out of the public eye, and quick.

Silver's Republican Death Rattle

I found Silver's article particularly interesting and insightful but I've got a few comments about specific moments. First, his assertion that "it is, in a nutshell, why conservatives don't win elections anymore" in reference to his conversation with John Ziegler seems over the top but I think points to a larger media theme happening here.

It's difficult to look at the 2008 election as being anything other than a massive landslide victory for the Democrats. They reclaimed the Presidency and reasserted, even lengthened, their lead in Congress. By all counts, the Democrats dominated the Republican Party in every imaginable aspect, leading many to signal the death knell for the GOP. Yet, I'm not quite sure that I agree with Silver's assertion that "conservatives don't win elections anymore". To me, Silver's claim strikes me as a hot off the press over exaggeration, an idea that one election (or two if you want to include the 2006 midterms when the Democrats barely squeaked out a majority in the Senate) shows that conservatives don't win elections. Unless I'm mistaken, the GOP enjoyed a majority in Congress from 2000-2006 and had a President in the White House for that same duration, a President that was elected twice. To simply say that because of one horribly performing election cycle, that conservatives don't win elections seems foolish. One could argubly say that if one takes away the past two elections, Democrats had issues with finding themselves on the victorious side in recent times. Silver's claim is technically correct I guess, seeing as how the GOP has lost the past 2 national elections in 2006 and 2008, but to make such a broad sweeping statement rings hollow.

Yet, I don't believe that Silver is the only one pushing this idea. The media in general has the thought that the GOP is in serious trouble and for the short term at least, I agree. Yet, I'm not ready to start heaping the dirt on the coffin. In the long term, there is no telling how the GOP reacts to this election and with as many skilled political operatives on the right as the left, there is no reason to believe that the right won't bounce back in some way. If we need any other evidence that the Democrats Party, of which I'm a proud member, need not rest on their laurels, we need not only recognize the way that Karl Rove and his cronies essentially slapped us around for the past eight years. Its unfortunate for the Rover that he backed such a lame candidate in Bush but given some kind of live wire with, gasp!, intelligence and some legitimate national political experience, is it so hard to believe that he can't put another right winger in the White House in the near future?

Future of Fox News

Despite being slightly old-ish (from Nov. 15), I think this article holds some interesting points with our upcoming topic being the right wing media, most prominently Fox News. With the change in the White House, the question for the rightest of right media outlet is how do we cope with the new administration. The Times article seems to imply that the course may be not much different than 8 years ago:

At the same time Fox News, which had been the most significant media supporter of the Bush administration, is now expected to revert to the position it held when it first broke through during the Clinton years: the aggressive voice of the opposition.

“The administration has changed, but the politics haven’t,” said John Rash, an advertising executive who teaches a course in media and politics at the University of Minnesota. “The liberal and conservative commentators who dominate each news network will have to invert their roles.”

In other words, instead of being the last line of defense, Fox News can now go on the offensive and begin to readily attack the new administration. If I had to venture a guess, look for the channel to become even more vicious, even more partisan since they now have to fight for their political life.

GOP Next Steps: Continued.

The story about the next steps for the GOP continues to play a large role in the media. With the recent election results heavily favoring all things Democrat, the Republicans have been left scrambling. As Thomas Edsall points out, or rather asks, the big question is what happens next? How can the Republican return to power? Can they? Colin discussed how older political parties (i.e. the Whigs) would fade away after a bad election cycle last week in class. While I can't imagine that the Republican party will just fade into history, the question that seems to be persisting in the media is a valid one. Does the GOP have to face a radical restructuring of their values and beliefs in order to stay relevant in a world that finds itself quickly distancing itself from the party?

With the next President ready to take office in a little over two months, the candidate the media seemed to favor, how will the media view the losing party? In a way, it reminds me of sports journalism, which I find to be highly reliant on knee jerk reactions. Your team wins, the coach is a genius. Your team loses, its time for the team to radically alter things. Negatives become more glaring in defeat than they ever do in victory. The same goes for positives. Does the GOP really require a massive overhaul or can some minor tweaks change the country's view on the party. The GOP is certainly at a crossroads. Do they stay the course or would that be, as Edsall seems to believe, polishing the brass on the Titanic? Or rather, do they make a few slight roster moves, throw in a trick play or two and reload for next week (or in political speak, the 2010 midterms)?

Clinton as SoS?

It seems as if the big news of the moment is that Hilary Clinton has been offered the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's cabinet, a position she is supposedly strongly considering. While I believe Clinton would be a fine SoS and have no questions about her abilities to do the job, my questions lie in the category of "How does this affect her political future?". As SoS, the experience she would pick up in the next 4 (or 8) years would be invaluable, making her as educated and prepared a candidate in 2016 as anyone in recent memory. Even in this year's election, many people found Hilary to be a strong candidate based on her stance on the issues. The years as a first lady obviously helped that and her work in Congress has been excellent prep as well. Throw SoS into that mix and you might have the startings of a very strong candidate in 2016. It might be wishful thinking on my part but if the grand ol' USA could follow up its first African American president with its first Woman President, it could establish the country as not a backwards thinking, socially conservative country but rather a visionary and progressive nation ready to lead the world in the 21st century.

GOP Next Steps

On the topic of "What Now?", if we step from the Obama White House over to the GOP, the picture is just about as interesting. Prior to the week following the election, I was in the "Sarah Palin is the New Star of the GOP, like it or not." group and was going to be a prominent leader in the party. However, following her meltdown and bickering war with McCain's people, I was skeptical. Yet, with the GOP governors meeting to discuss what the hell happened and how the hell do we fix it, Ms. Palin is firmly back in the spotlight, blowing off a GOP lunch and holding a press conference later today.

If nothing else, the election (obviously) jumped her a number of notches. She used to be a marginal young governor from Alaska but now is the featured attendee in Washington. The question now is whether she'll be able to regain any sort of national political prominance without being laughed off the stage for her gaffs, some of which I'm sure we haven't heard of, from the campaign. The fact that she was launched into the public spotlight unprepared and ill-advised can not be ignored. With some seasoning and the right coaching, can Palin regain her lost luster and go from sideshow to prominance in four years?

The other big question here is how the GOP reacts to Palin. While its clear that she isn't ready to go away and will do what she can to repair her public image, its not quite as clear how the GOP feels about her chances. Does the party want to continue to associate themselves with a ex-VP candidate who alienated pretty much everyone except hardcore conservatives? While she certainly appeals to the Religious Right and party line voters, how will she court the moderates? How does she court the young vote when her views so vehemently oppose the opinions of so many of the under 30 voters in the country?

What Do I Do Now?

From our friends at The Onion. We briefly spoke about election withdrawal and what happens after the election last night. As always, The Onion has managed to beautifully skewer the situation. Given how emotionally tied into the campaign Obama supporters were, the fact that their may be a void for some is really not that far-fetched. I, for one, have a few friends who moved away from their homes and jobs to work in crucial states for Obama. The question as to what they will do after the campaign, win or lose, has come up a couple of times and none of them have much of an answer. We all followed this election very closely and now, with its passing, what's next?

Obama's Change

Some have doubted whether or not Obama's message of change will continue to translate strongly to his work as the President. This article seems to suggest that it won't take long to prove those doubters wrong.

Palin's Meltdown

It's been interesting to watch the reactions to Palin over the last week. Not only does Newsweek's special edition paint her in a particularly bad light, Palin herself is now coming back on her doubters. Prior to the election, I was in the party of people who believed that win or lose, Palin was here to stay but with the bickering and in-fighting throughout the GOP, and now her calling her ex-running mate's aides "jerks", I'm not sure that she'll walk away unscathed. Can she continue to have shots taken at her in the public forum and still be able to launch a national political comeback or is it one and done? At the very least, Oprah is now willing to help.

Obama's Acceptance Speech

Because, why not? It's history.

Comedy Central Reactions

One of the best announcements of the evening. These guys consistently impress. Watch as Colbert, seemingly starting to tear up, quickly gets back in character as the video ends. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Newsweek Special Edition

While these are only some excerpts from the full edition that will be released tomorrow, it's certainly enough to pique one's attention. Especially of note:

"McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request."

"Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting."

"McCain also was reluctant to use Obama's incendiary pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a campaign issue. The Republican had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect them from terrorism. Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons). And before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a "celebrity" ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative)."

If true, even just these small portions of the article seem to be painting Palin as something of a renegade loose cannon, a maverick if you will. All kidding aside, this would have you believe that Palin was running amuck behind the scenes and McCain was becoming increasingly irritated by her with each passing day.

Nov. 5 Headlines

A cool collection of many of the front pages of the day from Daily Kos. I particularly like the action shot from The Sun. Looks like the one sheet from a new Jean Claude Van Damme flick. The Hamburger Morgen Post is a close second. Ahh, how nice is it to say that things like that, front pages that should embarrass every American, may just be coming to an end.

McCain's Concession

McCain's concession speech was classy, assured and touching. It has to be an incredibly difficult thing to do, to admit defeat after a massive campaign that has consumed every aspect of your life for the past year. As we've noted in class, it'll be interesting to see how McCain is viewed now. Will it be in a more favorable and positive light? I'm guessing so.

President Obama!

Exit Poll on Race

In CNN's exit polling, they found that of the voters that found race to be important, a deciding factor, the results saw Obama winning 55-44. Quite frankly, this is surprising for me. I would have thought that of the people who saw race as an issue, that the exit polling would have gone the opposite direction. Granted, exit polling is less than an exact science but still, an interesting observation

Multiple Coverages

Its pretty amazing to be able to sit here on the couch with CNN on and be able to watch CBS, MSNBC, ABC and Fox News on the ol' Macbook. With all the streaming video available, one can literally watch 5 or 6 feeds at the same time. What used to be reserved for the media and other privileged folks now is available for anyone with the slightest clue on how to do the Google.

This Guy Didn't Vote!

With all the talk about how many people are actually voting, here is a story about someone not voting. I would assume he would fall into the category of low-information voter that we discussed last night. Apparently, Barack's infomercial didn't rub Ol' Tommy the right way.

Election Coverage

Courtesy of MSNBC.

Record Numbers at the Polls?

It's looking like there has been a massive turnout thus far. Have to admit, seeing the Democratic process in action, with a huge number of people taking part is refreshing and exciting. For the most part, from today's coverage, it seems like people have been able to vote without problems. While there may be some minor issues here and there (especially it seems in Philly, must be a hangover from the Phightin' Phils), nothing significant has cropped up yet. Let's hope it can stay like that. 

Of course, some right wingers are already crying fraud. Could it be them trying to stop an election from running away from them? A last gasp to try and reverse the polls? I particularly like the Power Line article (the third link). Tammany Hall is alive and well apparently!

But At Least She Still Has The Right To Vote! Phew!

Palin may not enjoy the right to free speech but she does, thankfully, have the right to vote. Its nice to see she got dressed up too. Oh, she's so folksy! 

Nate Silver: Where to Watch

Nate Silver has an interesting analysis for Newsweek. For those of us that'll be glued to the sets tomorrow night, it provides us an interesting blueprint as to what to look for. Its remarkably in-depth and coming from one of the pollsters who has tracked this election like no other, its informative while remaining easily understood. It seems like it should be clear early as to what to expect. With OH, PA, FL, VA all closing early east coast time, if Obama emerges as a clear favorite after those states, it'll probably be an earlier night. If its too close to call in those, lock the doors, get a stiff drink and plant yourself down for what could be another long election night.

The anticipation is killing me. No joke.

Palin: Protect My First Amendment Rights!

Palin is now worried that her First Amendment rights may have been violated by the press. See, the Press (which, correct me if I'm wrong, also has an Amendment that says they can say what they want. Its like the 30th, or 10th. Wait. It's the First too), like totally took that right from her when they called her on being negative to Obama.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but when people report that you call some guy's friends terrorists and put ads on television and devote entire speeches to attacking a guy's character, typically, its not out of the norm to call said ads and speech "negative". This is ludicrous. If I go out spouting hate speech in the streets and Colin, reporting for the Courant, tells me to stop being so damn negative, my reaction isn't to tell Colin that he's infringing on my right to free speech. Rather, as a sane individual, my reaction is "Dude's probably right, I should most likely stop yelling hate speech in public if I don't want to be considered negative".

"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said.

That's cool. I'm practical and plainspoken too. THE MEDIA IS TOO. How is your questioning some guy's character for his associations any different than the media questioning your motives when you say that a presidential candidate "pals around with terrorists"?! This seems like a total double standard that Palin is trying to set up here. Ms. Palin, sorry that you've come off as an out of touch airhead, but maybe you should have had more intelligent things to say over the course of the campaign. The media isn't the reason that Sarah Palin is viewed as an unexperienced, unqualified fool. Sarah Palin is.

Who?

Happy Friday before the election!

McCain and the Bloggers

An interesting article/Q&A that I noticed on The Huffington Post that I'll link to. Its a Q&A with Robert Draper, the author of a recent NY Times Magazine article on McCain. I found two of the questions particularly interesting/pertinent.

WWD: Did it help that you had only one story to write, as opposed to filing every 30 seconds?
R.D.: Unlike some of the journalists for not only the daily papers but for networks, who have to constantly blog as well as file stories, I could be a little more leisurely, and beyond that, maintain a big-picture perspective. And frankly, the McCain campaign was much more responsive to that approach. They’ve come to be rather disdainful of the hyper-blogging that takes place on the press bus, and they think it has increased this mind-set of “gotcha” journalism, where every time John McCain would say something, instead of asking a follow-up question, people would go scurry off to their laptops and post to their blogs. And the McCain campaign believes that’s not what journalism ought to be. I’m not positing myself as some kind of superior journalist, it’s just that the format of long-form journalism allows me to be a little more leisurely, allows me to look at the longer view of things, and allows me two-and-a-half months on a single story.

WWD: You mentioned that the McCain campaign thinks that blogging is inimical to journalism. Do you think it’s true what they said in your story, that reporters are “primarily young, snarky, blog-obsessed and liberal?”
R.D.: Oh, yes, I think it’s true, but I don’t think it’s a fatal impediment. Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter and others who would characterize the media these days in such a way have it about right, except that I also found that a lot of these younger journalists who were my companions aboard the Straight Talk Express were extremely diligent, incredibly hardworking, extremely intelligent and very much of a mind to give the McCain campaign a fair shake. I do think that they are impeded by the imperatives of the trade now…you’re in this eternal footrace, with so many competitors, to get something out that’s fresh and hot and get it out quickly. But Obama’s people have coped with it, and I think that McCain’s people have coped with it less well.
I know a lot of people covering the Obama campaign who are displeased with the level of access being given them, and they have concerns with what an Obama administration would look like in that regard. But they’re also not made out to be the enemy.…And there is a level of disdain that is palpable in the McCain campaign that does not exist in the Obama campaign, and I cannot believe that that is helpful to McCain’s efforts.

Its certainly worth the read. It seems like its playing into the idea that I've been tracking a bit, the idea that McCain and his campaign are reluctant to embrace new media correctly (i.e. blogging, YouTube). While it probably has not been the fatal flaw of the campaign, its a clear disadvantage. One only needs to do a basic search of the net to see an overwhelmingly majority of bloggers/online journalists favoring Obama/Biden. With the internet expanding at the rate that it is, with new capabilities popping up each day, I don't think its a mistake that the more technologically advanced campaign is winning.

Obama's Infomercial

As the evening draws closer, so does Barack Obama's long discussed 30 minute advertisement in which, up to today, nobody really knew what to think of it. Then, the Obama campaign released a teaser of sorts to the NY Times, in which, the basic outline of his address tonight is outlined. The Huffington Post also gives more detail.

Initially, this was an idea that I was skeptical about. I felt like all that could come from it was some slip that would give McCain some out of left field material to bring the last week of the campaign home. However, as time has passed and we've gotten closer to tonight, Obama's lead has remained steady and McCain seems to be reeling. Even if McCain somehow finds material from tonight's special, we've reached a possible point of no return. By the time McCain can begin airing or speaking about Obama's program, it'll be Thursday, the 30th, at the earliest, 5 days until the election. Is that enough time to drastically alter the election? Probably not.

The other question remains is that, will Obama even give McCain any material? In class on Monday, there seemed to be some fears expressed that McCain might find something in the 30 minute address. Yet, in the first 2 months of the general election campaign, Obama has given McCain almost no material upon which to work from. Why should the last 30 minutes be any different? Up to this point, Obama's campaign has quickly and decisively countered many of McCain's accusations and speaking points. Overall, it would be difficult to argue otherwise, to argue that McCain has run the better campaign. It won't change tonight. For those waiting for Obama to screw up, they'll have to keep waiting. Tonight won't be it.

Electoral Map Tips to Obama

It seems like everyone is starting to believe that Obama has this thing wrapped up. MSNBC's blog First Read has the electoral college giving Obama the requisite 270 for the win. With a week to go until the people hit the polls, can McCain possibly come back? I don't see anything significantly swinging the election one way or another. It'll be interesting to see that with only 8 days to go, how many media outlets start to try and declare who the winner will be.

Polling Tells Which Story Exactly?

Since we discussed polling, I just saw these two articles in rapid succession and couldn't help but laugh. It just goes to show that one can feel pretty optimistic or pretty poor depending on whom you read and trust. A McCain backer can read the AP report and feel like a million bucks. An Obama would be changing the underwear. Yet, if you're a Washington Post nut, Obama backers can rejoice, while McCain should change the Depends.

Jonny's Mad!

Jon Stewart at Northeastern, in a decidedly more direct attack than just "framing the narrative":



The obvious freedom of doing stand-up vs. a nightly comedy show is apparent. Stewart doesn't have to represent anyone but himself when he's standing on the stage by his lonesome.

He later went back to the Daily Show and explained his comments:

Health of the Candidates

We've previously discussed the idea as to what from the candidate's private life should become public knowledge. It seemed that the consensus was that the medical history of the involved parties should be made public, so that the voters of the country have an idea as to what they're going to be dealing with over the course of the next 4 years. In tomorrow's NY Times, a new article investigating the candidate's health will be featured. You can read the article on the Times website now. The article is an in-depth look into the medical histories of each candidate with the exception of Palin, who has volunteered nothing in terms of information, which keeps with the intense protection the McCain camp has attempted to utilize for Palin. Regardless, its an interesting (and intensive) read worth the time it takes to click through 5 pages.

McCain Campaign Licensing Controversy

Eric Danton, of the Hartford Courant, weighs in with some good links about the trouble that McCain and Co. are having with licensing music. Worth checking through if one so desires.

Palin on SNL

For what it's worth, the clip from Palin on SNL, which brought in HUGE ratings for SNL. In fact, the best ratings in over 14 years for the weekly staple. That said, I'm surprised that they brought her on as a guest, what with Tina Fey's comments about her wanting to leave the planet if Palin is elected. Fey may not be a writer for the show anymore but its clear that they're happy to have her when she wants to stop by. But with those rating, who cares about politics?

Her portion of Weekend Update:

McCain on Letterman

Excerpts from McCain's return trip to Dave's stomping grounds. (Excuse the Ad)



Gotta give Dave credit that he doesn't back down when he has the potential (however unlikely it may be according to the polls) president sitting in the chair next to him.

Debate Reactions

It seems like today's reactions to the final debate last night have been overwhelmingly positive for Obama. While no one seems to insist that Obama covered any new ground, his tried and true, steady as she goes method of running down the clock to Election Day seemed like a success. I thought McCain had his strongest debate to date but still at times seemed erratic and unfocused, jumping from issue to issue within the course of a few sentences. From the NY Times:

It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.

For the most part, Obama seemed his usual self, refusing to be dragged into any sort of petty tit-for-tat with McCain over some incisive topics, i.e. ACORN and William Ayers. When prompted, Obama clearly and efficiently laid out his history with both ACORN and Ayers and seemed to make a convincing case on both.



Most seem to agree that McCain's strongest line came when he stated he was not President Bush, seen here:



However, people just seem to think that McCain came up short. Reports can be found as follows:

Boston Globe (1)(2)(3)
NY Times (1)(2)
LA Times
Washington Post (1)(2)(3)

Still Won't Condemn It

Unbelievable.

YouTube Strikes Back

Awhile back, I posted on the impact that YouTube might have/be having on the election. I noticed this post from DailyKos in regards to YouTube pulling McCain ads off of the site because of copyright infringement. Frankly, I couldn't help but laugh. Its one thing for some user submitted clip of Scarlett Johannson being interviewed by Jay Leno to get pulled for incorrect usage rights. I'm sure that little Jimmy in Grand Rapids, MI probably didn't have the correct legal channels to acquire the necessary rights. However, for a national Presidential campaign to have their stuff pulled for illegal use of copyrighted video/audio is embarassing. With all the lawyers inevitably linked to McCain, couldn't he find one to request the use of these songs and clips? Is it really that difficult?

Olbermann Responds to McCain Rally Mobs

In previous posts, I've spoken about the mob mentality being found at McCain Rallies. Sure, Olbermann can be a blowhard at times (most of the time) but to hear him thunder away shows an increasingly hostile media presence in this situation. Over the past week or so, these stories of hatred and hostility have climbed the charts and are becoming a major focus for the media. This is the most decisive demand that I've heard to date:

McCain Does Letterman (Redux)

This should be interesting to watch. Given the speed in which the now-classic Letterman rant on McCain spread around the 'net, it'll be interesting to see how many people tune in/pay attention to the return appearance on the Late Show. I think the fact that McCain is returning to do the show illustrates the fact that his initial blowing off of Dave had further reaching repercussions than previously imagined. Thanks to Dave refusing to go quietly into the night, Thursday's show will be must see TV. If for nothing else, seeing how McCain handles the situation will be worth the price of switching from Colbert.

Palin Can't Tell Supporter from Foe

In the continuing trainwreck of a candidacy, Sarah Palin decided it'd be easier to attack everyone as opposed to just Obama. Can anything go right for this woman?

McCain and Corporate America

It seems as if the media is ready to write off this election and if the story in today's WSJ is any indication, it may be time for the rest of us. For a Republican to be struggling to connect with the Corporate America that any good GOP nominee should own is a serious problem. As was mentioned in class last night, the Republicans seem to be stuck with a candidate that they don't like and even if they do, have trouble seeing said candidate lasting any longer than a single term. A recent poll (and article), released by the Washington Post and ABC News, suggests that McCain is rapidly losing support in his own party:

McCain has made little headway in his attempts to convince voters that Obama is too "risky" or too "liberal." Rather, recent strategic shifts may have hurt the Republican nominee, who now has higher negative ratings than his rival and is seen as mostly attacking his opponent rather than addressing the issues that voters care about. Even McCain's supporters are now less enthusiastic about his candidacy, returning to levels not seen since before the Republican National Convention .

It seems like there is no good news coming out of the McCain camp even though they have Obama right where they want him.

A "Nicer" Campaign

McCain/Palin are switching it up again after being jumped on by just about everyone for the negative, mob like campaign they were running the previous week. It seems like they are getting increasingly desperate given the larger leads that Obama/Biden continue to open up on them.

LA Times takes on Fox News

While its kind of assumed that many media outlets around the country dislike Fox News, rarely is the discontent as evident as it was in the LA Times today. Granted this may be an opinion piece by a staff writer but its still noteworthy that such a large paper publishes such a strong condemnation of another media outlet. It'll be interesting to see how, over the next three weeks or so, the conservative and liberal media outlets deal with each other's reporting.

McCain Sticks Up for His Boys (and Girls)

It'll be interesting to see if McCain and his crowds will continue to arise as an issue. In recent weeks, more and more reports are popping up in regards to (borderline) audience hate speech taking part at McCain rallies, speech McCain's camp is now defending. The language has ranged from calling Obama anything from a terrorist to outright cries to of killing Obama. Quite frankly, this type of stuff is beyond disturbing and the fact that the McCain camp is not strongly discouraging/denouncing it is a cause for alarm. Its one thing for opponents to disagree and even dislike the other. However, to promote and condone this type of mob mentality is disgusting.

It appears that the media is picking up on this strongly as a simple GoogleNews search of "McCain Rallies Kill Him" (the scariest thing to come from the crowds) brings up a great deal of articles relating to the subject. While many (scratch that; almost all) of the articles are comdeming in nature, thats to be expecting from rational thinking human beings. Until McCain comes out to denounce the terrible nature of this mentality, it'll only continue to spiral out of control, hopefully without any sort of consequences. However, its not difficult to think, that if the guilty McCain supporters continue to act in such a manner, the situation could turn ugly quickly when other people of opposing viewpoints get involved. Its certainly not something I condone, rather something I fear but it's not far fetched to think that these rallies could turn violent if this isn't controlled.

Reaction to the Debate: Moderators

Some discussion has arisen of the role of the moderators in the debates in the wake of Gwen Ifill being chosen to host the VP debate. Many felt that the fact that Ifill has a book coming out on the topic of race in the Obama age would handcuff Ifill from truly moderating and a solid group felt that it did. There was worry that any sort of limitation Ifill put on Palin would be construed as unfair and political versus actually trying to get an answer from a candidate.

After last night's Presidential debate, it seems as if some are just as unhappy with the role the moderator played. While watching the debate, the fact that Brokaw was desperately attempting to keep the candidates under the time constraints was pretty evident. I don't think I would call Brokaw's job "terrible" but it was something less than stellar. Even when he tried to stop the candidates, they would frequently push anyway often times with Brokaw allowing it to happen. I agree with Mitchell's idea that the second half of the debate seemed all too familiar given the first hour and a half that we sat through a few weeks ago. For Obama, who seemed to have the consensus that he won the first debate, it must be a positive that he didn't have to sway from the ideas/talking points that already won. For McCain, who is facing increasingly desperate times, the fact that he had to regurgitate previously explained ideas can't be good for the campaign.

The Election to This Point

From Slate:

McCain/Palin Go Negative (Again)

With Sarah Palin more or less suggesting that Barack Obama is one step away from terrorism, it appears that the McCain/Palin ticket is getting ready to turn up the heat with attack ads once again. It'll be interesting to see how the media responds this time around after the first wave of attacks ended with Fox News reporting the lies in the ads.

Will McCain/Palin play it closer to the truth this time around or will the last month of the campaign become an all out war where truth takes a back seat to winning the election? In class, we've spoken about how McCain's ultimate goal is to win the election, as is any candidate's chief objective. It'll be interesting to see how far McCain will be willing to go with exagerrations and full on lies in order to claim that seat in the West Wing.

Sarah and Katie: Sarah Strikes Back!

Following the increasingly embarassing interviews by CBS News, Sarah Palin has come out like any good VP Candidate should and said that Katie Couric "annoyed" her. Thats funny because every one of Palin's answers "annoyed" most of America in their obvious BS factor. What has come out of those Couric interviews can only be described as highly damaging and while its too bad that Ms. Palin didn't enjoy some actual questions as opposed to the meatballs she was hoping, it doesn't change the fact that she was unprepared and came off as looking like a high schooler who didn't do the homework.

Having watched the Couric interviews a number of times, I've got to admit that none of the questions that were asked of Palin seemed unfair or out of left field. In fact, each seemed like something a VP candidate should be able to answer standing on their heads. Its unfortunate that Couric didn't give Palin the questions she was looking for, particularly ones that could set Palin up to attack Obama but thats the name of the game. The media has every right to ask the tough questions and too often, they don't. Here, Couric stepped up to the plate and took it to someone as opposed to letting Palin walk all over her. The fact that Palin was "annoyed" should only be taken as a compliment to Couric and her decent interviewing skills.

More from Katie and Sarah

She doesn't know any other Supreme Court cases!

This Just In...

VP Debate could be Politically Pivotal.

While it may seem like an obvious statement, with all the the scrutiny on Palin prior to tonight's debate, this could be a contest with far reaching consequences for both sides. With more than half of voters beginning to think that Palin doesn't understand the "complex issues", tonight may be her last chance to salvage whatever dignity she may have left. After getting drummed with questions to which she had no answer by Katie Couric (Katie Couric!) and stumbling through moments of the Charlie Gibson interview, it's almost a necessity for Palin to come out tonight and have a great debate.

On the other hand, I feel its almost a necessity for Biden to come out and bury Palin. Let's all be honest, the McCain/Palin ticket has had a rough couple of weeks and while I'm not quite ready to say that they're reeling, its not a stretch to say that they've been falling behind. If Biden can unequivocally show tonight that Palin is the clueless, unprepared woman she has made herself to be in the past few weeks, I'm not quite sure how she'll be able to recover. As we discussed briefly in Monday's class, if Palin has another bad week and then all of a sudden turns it around and comes out slinging knowledge, can we even believe that its genuine and not a regurgitation of today's fact packet? I'm not so sure that I want a VP who needs to use flash cards during a meeting with a foreign head of state. But hey, that may just be me.

Some Humor to Lighten the Load

Just because its been a long day and we could probably all use a laugh or two.

Palin Brushing Up on Foreign Policy at Epcot
Report: 60 Million People You'd Probably Never Talk to Voting for Other Guy

The Presidential Debate in 90 Seconds

I forgot to mention this tonight in class but this is about as video manipulation as you can. Reducing a 90 minute debate to 90 seconds. Buckle up.


While its obviously gimmicky, it does provide the viewer with a suprisingly efficient summation of the night's events. It really works to point out many of the topics that we discussed tonight in class. In particular, the moment of the rapid repetition of Reagan stands out as we discussed. The McCain campaign recognizes that for them to align themselves with the current White House would be political suicide. However, for conservatives and even the so-called "Reagan Democrats", the Reagan administration was a shining light in conservative presidencies, one fondly remembered by right wingers around the country.

If McCain/Palin can effectively denote the ticket as a Reagan/Bush for the 21st century, its something the conservative base would most likely rally around, a key issue for the campaign, especially after the events with the economic bailout falling through today. As many are reporting, McCain came back to Washington last week promising to rally the House GOPs. He was unable to do that, with roughly 60% of House Republicans voting down the bill. So not only has McCain been unable to get something done in Washington, the whole reason for the campaign suspension, he also had to endure the hullabaloo that ensued (as we highlighted tonight).

Voters Do The Google

An interesting glimpse into what exactly we, the people, search for in regards to our presidential candidates. I found this excerpt particularly frank:

"Ranking even above that No. 10 slot in mid-September was "Barack Obama antichrist," a manifestation of a list — disseminated via viral emails — of parallels between Obama and the villain in an apocryphal translation of the Book of Revelation. Over 20% of those searching the "antichrist" story clicked through to Snopes.com, an urban legend clearinghouse that brands the story "FALSE" with a trademark red icon. And the Snopes site itself is a common search term for truth-squadders who pair them with candidates’ names."

At least it was proven false. I mean, we can't have the antichrist in office. That wouldn't be good.

McCain's Economic Woes

With McCain's campaign still "on hold", Johnny returned to DC in order to take part in the economic talks. However, it seems like McCain isn't coming back with an open heart and mind. Rather, many reports are stating that McCain has remained quiet and shut off during the discussions, only speaking during the closing moments to express doubt about the proposed agreement working.

It seems as if most of the media is jumping on the idea that McCain sabotaged the talks as articles are popping up in papers/sites across the country. In fact, in terms of a public perception of what is happening, the media has really taken control of the bailout talks. Regardless of what eventually happens in these talks, with all the national negative press that McCain is taking on today, will it matter what role he plays? Also, if he stays true to his word and no-shows the debate tonight, can he allow Obama unmitigated access to everyone watching the debate while he sits in Washington getting blasted by the press and Washington insiders alike? McCain has already been questioned heavily about his economic stance and now that he has taking time off to do nothing but fix the economy and is getting assaulted in the press for doing so, how can he recover? Is the press rearing its ugly head for all the slight that they felt from the Republicans?

UPDATE: ABC News is suggesting that since McCain broke the buyout, now he's got to buy it.

Sarah Palin Visits the UN (and Katie Couric)

Gaaahhh, the media!



Does she know a legit answer to any one of the questions? It's, well, questionable.

Sarah Palin Visits the UN: Part Deux

Yesterday, I questioned why the media doesn't start a harsher policy with the McCain/Palin campaign in terms of dealing with their shutting out reporters. Upon more thought, its a bit more obvious. The media, regardless of claims of journalistic integrity, is a business that produces news reports to make money. Wisely, the media recognizes that if they were to deal a cold shoulder to the Republican campaign, they would most likely lose their Republican viewers, thus losing ratings, thus losing money.

Regardless of how frustrating it must be to the members of the media (it's certainly frustrating me), they are locked into a symbiotic relationship with the campaigns. They need McCain/Palin as much as McCain/Palin needs the media, much to the (increasing) chagrin of both camps. Without the media, McCain has no outlet for his views. Without McCain, the media has no interest from its right leaning viewers/listeners/readers.

Searching for Bobby Fisher (/Joe Biden)

For all of those looking for the other VP nominee, it appears that he may be back in business. As we mentioned briefly in class, there was some increasing talk about Joe Biden's general lack of exposure in wake of Sarah Palin's Super Woman rise and escapades. The LA Times has an interesting article discussing the amazing vanishing act of one Joe Biden and in it, suggests that Biden may not have gone anywhere, but it was merely the media who fled. What'll happen as Palin's novelty wears and the general grating nature of her ignoring the press becomes more, well, grating? As I mentioned in my previous post, the press staged a mini coup earlier today at the UN. Will Biden begin to re-enter the picture as McCain/Palin continue to piss off the press?

Sarah Palin Visits the UN

With Sarah Palin's visit to the UN underway, the question now is not how her meetings with foreign head of states will go but rather, will anyone know how they go? The McCain camp remained steadfast in their tight restrictions around Palin, greatly limiting the press from having any access whatsoever to the VP candidate. I can't help but admit that this constant tightening of the belt around Palin is getting to be ridiculous. After all, the media has the right to do their job. If the McCain campaign continues to jerk around the major media outlets, why won't said outlets just pull their coverage of McCain and his cronies? They threatened to do so today (scroll down to the bottom of the article to read the entire ordeal in chronological order) and eventually won some ground but if this continues, the media will need to stand up for themselves and put their foot down. Palin can't hide forever as the McCain campaign will eventually need to start reaching out to swing voters and trying to let people have an idea as to who this enigma who could be help running the country really is.

International News Overwhelms Us Internet Types

After reading through different portions of the State of the News Media 2008, I was surprised at first to see the statistics in regards to types of news coverage via online media. Now seeing as how I don't subscribe to any daily newspapers, I primarily receive my news from various online sources (read= free) and would consider myself fairly educated on the goings on in the world. Prior to reading this study, I would used the previous statement with a much different intention but in retrospect, I believe it may point out something I may have not previously considered.

When I consume my daily news, much of it is not necessarily divided in my mind into different parts. In other words, I don't read a story about Barack Obama and place it in politics, then read something about the US economy and put that into a economy category. Rather, I read my news and consume it as a greater whole, i.e. "I'm reading the news of the day, I'm informing myself". However, as this study points out, I may be reading more about one subject than another and come to think of it, I realize I do.

It seems that the major point of this page is to suggest that one who primarily reads online journalism is over indulged with international news. If one is to add together all the news that is centered on the international stage, one would find that nearly 47 % of the reporting done online is based around either international news or US foreign policy. In other words, nearly half of the news that I have available to me online is about foreign issues.

I suppose if one thinks about this, it shouldn't be a surprise. The US is currently involved in two conflicts overseas and as the planet becomes a more global place, the news is going to need to reflect that. Given that the US occupies a single space in the global scene (no matter how large), the rest of the world is going to produce more news. Its going to require a much greater commitment to cover this news and with the internet's ability to instantly pick up and analyze a piece of news, the proliferation of international news seems logical. Still, the survey surprised me. While I recognized the importance of global news, I never really thought of the dominance it plays in the online sphere.

The more I think of it, the more sense it makes. For example, take a local newspaper with a specific regional readership it has in mind when it goes to press each day. Knowing its audience, the paper recognizes the necessity of having a hefty dose of local news in its pages, where as a more national (or perhaps even global) paper such as the NY Times publishes with a much different audience in mind. The Times doesn't need to devote as much space to New York only news. However, on the other hand, take The Hartford Courant. With a considerably smaller readership on a national level, the Courant can devote more space to local matters due to its regional nature.

Now, take an online news source, say MSNBC or CNN, both of which have absolutely no local market attached to them. They exist to serve the national and international news scene. Therefore, with no local market and, in turn, no local news, they can devote more space to the international news of the day. Hence, the stronger emphasis on the larger scope.

Fox News

While we may have been discussing the coverage of McCain's ads on Fox News, its clear that the channel is not jumping ship on the campaign. As the LA Times pointed out, when the network had the ability to ask some hard questions with its first official interview with Palin, anchor Sean Hannity threw nothing but meatballs to the VP candidate.

While some of the smaller, afternoon anchors may have suggested some negativity in regards to McCain, the prime time team remained steadfast in its support. While it can't be much of a surprise that Fox News remained firmly right, it still is interesting to see it pick its battles in terms of what kind of truth they want to portray. They may be willing to call out an ad that may stretch the truth/flat out lie but when it comes to an interview with a candidate that could result in major damage, the network backed off.

The Issues v. John McCain

With Wall Street facing some dire straits, what will each candidate do to help calm fears over an upcoming recession? With John McCain backpedaling from his stance that the economy is "fundamentally sound", it's been interesting to see how the media is portraying each of the candidates in this struggles. Even just from a quick scan of the LA Times or NY Times headlines will show that McCain is certainly the target of the scorn from the mainstream media. While Obama seems to escape unscathed from the day's headlines, there are an unmistakable glutton of articles about McCain's opinions (1)(2)(3)(4). It seems as if we may be beginning to enter a portion of the campaign built around issues and from the looks of it, McCain is starting to take more direct hits from the media about his inability to discuss the issues.

In a recent poll by Quinnipiac, Obama has regained a small lead in the race (49-45), rebounding from some polls last week showing him trailing a McCain-Palin ticket hot off a good showing at the convention. The article in the Times states that this only a portion of the polling came during the recent financial struggles. I can't help but wonder if this is a sign of the backlash that may be starting to stem from the attack tactics shown by McCain and Palin. As we mentioned in class on Monday evening, we wouldn't know the results of those ads until the next major poll came out. With the Republican Campaign finding themselves on the bottom of the heap, the question becomes how do they, in turn, rebound and regain the lead that they had, however slim it may have been.

YouTube and User-Created Media

For what is the first presidential election in the era of YouTube, what is its impact? The popular site provides an instant access point to everything and anything one could possibly want in regards to election coverage. A simple search can find whole "official" channels run by both the Obama and McCain camps, each of which features hundreds of videos, ranging from campaign advertisments to "favorite" videos of each group. From these two channels, one can watch literally every bit of advertisements (or propaganda?) both campaigns have created since their inception, all with a small click of the mouse.

Previously, voters were subjected only to advertisements when they're paid to air but with YouTube, people no longer have to wait to see these ads. Even with the slightest bit of internet saavy, each of these videos can be emailed, IMed, embedded into blogs, etc. to whomever one would like to see them. It opens up a number of new (and quite frankly exciting) channels for grassroot movements to start. No longer are each individual campaigns solely responsible for the spread of their ads. It now can be done by the people, if they so choose.

Equally as interesting is the ability for voters to post user-created content, allowing for the instant delivery of homemade videos that cost nothing to air. These range from attacking, to silly, to celebratory but each are created by groups unaffliated with either of the campaigns. Each of these have been watched thousands of times and for the most part, they're minor pieces. However, its clear that the ability for users/voters, to have their opinions heard is unlike it has ever been before. With this, do YouTube users become part of the media? Are these lo-fi video and audio clips being produced the same as any given CBS or NBC Evening news pieces without the large budgets? They're being viewed. Who's viewing them?

More important events are even easier to view. I can sit down and watch Obama's DNC speech or McCain's RNC speech whenever I please. In fact, both of those videos have been watched over 100,000 times (in Obama's case, it is 537,532 times). Those are some large numbers of viewers who have sit down to watch even a portion of those two speeches. Had this been any other election (even 2004), that ability was non-existant. How does the ability to review these would-be major turning points in the election affect voters?

Really, the only YouTube vid that has been noticed by the mainstream media has been the incredibly popular (over 9 million views) Obama Girl. When this was released back in 2007, it was something of a sensation, breaking out of cyberspace to touch the everyday. While it was not supported by either campaign, I can't help but believe that it certainly brought a great deal more exposure and hype to Obama's then primary run.

Change for All!

Its becoming more prevalent as the 2008 Election rolls along that both sides are championing the idea of Change. What was first the motto of the Obama campaign during the primaries, the term "change" has now become a major keyword for both campaigns.

It'll be interesting to track how from here on out the two groups utilize the term and the ideas surrounding it. Obama has based his run from the start on the idea but with McCain's campaign picking up the term as well, it should be a key point in the debates, should they happen. Both sides are admitting that whoever can best convince the American public that they are the candidate that can actually bring about change will probably find themselves on the top of the heap come November. Will it be the original or the maverick?

Nader vs. Perot

If only Ron Paul gets his wish. One can't help but wonder if, despite what analysts may be predicting, one third party candidate may have enough votes to move what seems like will be a close race one way or another. Nader and Perot have done it in the past. Is there another 76th richest man in America to rock the boat?

Lipstick and Swine

Burning up the news outlets today has been the furor over the comments by Barack Obama seen below:



The question is to whether or not Obama was referring to Sarah Palin, and thus, calling his opponent's choice for VP a "pig". It's pretty obvious from watching the clip in its entirety, and more than just the supposed controversial statement, that McCain's campaign jumped on Obama for a rather benign statement, one McCain has used before:



It is interesting to see how McCain's campaign has been quick to point this out, probably realizing that the national media would jump on any controversy that either side could muster, given the discussion had in Monday's class in regards to the McCain campaign's animosity towards the press. When it seems like the media is pushing too hard into the subject of Sarah Palin, they ask for "deference" but when its necessary to use the news outlets to advance their own campaign, they don't seem to have a problem using any source they can. The media, recognizing the possibility of a story, has jumped on the trail, just as the McCain camp could have wanted. In turn, a great deal is being made out of nothing.