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.