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
Monday, September 29, 2008
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).
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.
"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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
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.
Does she know a legit answer to any one of the questions? It's, well, questionable.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
