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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

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.