Beware: Lull Ahead

As the delegate math sews up for Senator Obama look for the lull to set in. Political coverage in MSM is going to slow down in the coming weeks as media organizations have fewer contests to cover. To be sure the blogs and cable news will go on dissecting every uttered syllable, but the public's attention span and therefore big network coverage will shrink on this topic until the conventions. This is good news for Senator Obama. He hasn't won a dominant victory over Senator Clinton, but rather a war of attrition. As long as Senator Clinton doesn't do anything to make their battle more public in the weeks and months leading to the convention, the media will yawn as she makes her arguments on electability. The lull will be the media slow-down Obams needs to quietly mend fences after a divisive primary battle.

The lull hurts Senator McCain. He needs all the free media coverage he can get with so little in his campaign coffers. With Republican brand ID so startlingly low, McCain needs open air to declare himself the unconventional Republican. If people fall asleep to the election season and wake up for McCain's convention speech he might get tagged with that brand clear to November.

If the shoe were on the other foot.....

The proof of Hillary Clinton's political power lies in the fact that she's hung in this race for this long. Any other candidate would have been outwardly pressured to leave the race by the party. The fact that Senator Clinton has not been is proof of her stature in the party, and the strange fear many dems have of the wrath of the Clinton machine. If you don't believe me, think about this....

What if it had been Senator Clinton, not Senator Obama that had won 11 straight contests after February 5th? If Senator Clinton's campaign had run up a delegate margin comparable to Senator Obama's and out fundraised him, and won Iowa, would he have been able to withstand the chorus of calls for him to get out the race? The media would have pronounced him dead long, long ago.

Do I Smell an Endorsement?

Is it me, or did it just sound like Senator John Edwards said he supports Hillary? If you listened to Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Edwards said that Clinton was gaining steam and would be a stronger candidate in the fall. Maybe it's me, but I can take this one of two ways. Either Edwards has little chance of becoming the VP under Obama, or there's more than meets the eye to this race. Is it me or is it strange that pundits keep saying that it would take a shocking revelation to knock out Obama? Why do they keep saying that? It's almost like they're trying to cushion the blow when Hillary overtakes Obama because of some nasty scandal or political secret. Edwards words reminded me why I hate politicians more than any other profession, because they can never say plainly how they feel. They have to dress us their words and encode them, almost as if they think we are incapable of handling the truth. I think this story is far from over, so stay posted.

Maybe Brooks was right.

Have we reached an age where we lack fact?

When a blog like huffington post can publish as prominently as the NY Times, when anyone can photoshop any image, when anyone can edit together any clips to make nearly anyone say nearly anything, are we living in a fact-less world? This question of course has already been posed by folks smarter than I.

But I wonder if you can't take the logic of that question and apply it to Brooks' thesis. He posits essentially there are demographic blocks that hold immovable beliefs because of their social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. In a society that's far less homogeneous than our parents and certainly our grandparents' demographic groups and by extension voting bloc's are creating their own reality.

If I am a staunch liberal, I can get my news from the NY Times, watch Keith Olberman, and read books by Al Gore. Sources like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to knowing that a particular source is owned by Rupert Murdoch, or that they are being run by the corporate media.

If I'm a staunch conservative, I can read the Wall Street Journal, watch Sean Hannity, and read books by Bill O'Reilly. Source like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to corporate media being slaves to the liberal bias.

But in the age of the internet it's far worse than that. I can ensconce myself in ideological blogs and podcasts, the echo-chamber effect. And when empirical evidence begins to pop up that my ideology or political leader might not be right, I can simply recreate reality through unfounded stories and minority reports. We see this currently with the public reaction to the Bush Administration, no one can defend the results this administration as wrought, so the Conservative blogosphere has simply tapped into the idea that W was not conservative enough. And the liberals in congress forced his hand.

This modern media landscape is having a profound effect in the Democratic Primary. Barack Obama is simply elitist. A man raised by a single mother, who only paid off his law school degree a few years ago is out of touch. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton who lived in the Governor's mansion for 12 years and the White House for 8, and has since made $109 million is somehow a woman of the people. Why? Because that's the narrative particular demographic groups have set up for themselves. And in this new media landscape, opinion matters as much as fact, perception as much as reality, and no one has to acknowledge something they don't believe.

The Internet for all it's power to share information, might actually be encouraging people to pull further into their demographic an ideological enclaves than explore others.

Getting it Right in Iraq

One of the most difficult things to deal with as a citizen thinking about Iraq is the constant one-way version of the story we seem to get. Whether complaint or skeptical, the media only deals with one point of view on Iraq, that of our government. That's not fair and balanced, its not even objective. It's just a simple way to minimize investment in actual news gathering and focus reporting on what you are already being fed. It also underserves the American public trying to suss out what is really going on in Iraq.

Enter the McClatchy group. They have been one of the few news organizations consistently taking risks and working from within Iraq to give the most complete picture of what's going on in Iraq. I listened to an interview this morning by Bill Moyers of Leila Fadel, the 26 year-old McClatchy Baghdad bureau chief. You can catch the transcript here, or listen to the podcast. The best part of her reporting is that its agenda free. There's little discussion of what "should" be happening or what's right and wrong, her reporting simply attempts to explain who the players are and what the ingredients are in the soup that is Iraq.

The Moyers interview is a great start, but you can also go straight to the source. Fadel and her staff maintain a daily blog relaying what life is like for the the people living in Iraq. It's a riveting read, and if I were made head of a major news outlet tomorrow. It would be required listening daily on my network. Give it a read here, and rest assured it will be on our blog roll.

Bittergate: What's really going on.

Barack Obama has been getting slammed for being elitist, mostly because he accurately described a voting trend among midwestern and rural voters. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have wasted no time pouncing on these ill-chosen words. But I want to clarify a few things here, because I just don't think the media is covering these developments accurately.

1. The media needed to hit Obama for something. Rev. Wright seemed perfect, but then Obama gave the speech of his political career and squelched that beast, at least for the moment. This was an easy comment because it fit a media narrative. Obama is a liberal elite, who will always have problems with "downscale" voters. Nevermind that he was raised by a single mother, paid his way through school, and passed up high paying jobs to become a community organizer.

2. The story got legs because the narrative that Hillary was dead was getting tired, this story gives the media a way to revive her. At most this problem knocks Obama down a few points. It certainly doesn't gain her any especially nationally.

3. Hillary Clinton made up a story about landing under sniper fire and told it exactly the same way three different times. The media has treated Obama's poorly chosen words with the same credence and Clinton's fabrication.

4. There is a legitimate critique to be made about Obama's comments. The candidates all recognize them and have pandered to them since the election cycle began. They've been in a race to prove who has a stronger faith in God. Hillary Clinton tells gun stories like she grew up on the frontier. Obama runs around condeming trade as if it were to blame for all the countries ills. Both candidates wrapped themselves in knots trying to answer simple questions pertaining to illegal immigration.

5. There is one question to be asked of America's working class. What's more insulting? Having a candidate accurately describe a voting trend? Or having candidates (like our current president) use their deep seeded faith in God or their dedication to tradition against them for decades. What is more insulting? Being reminded that you are bitter about how our economy has treated you? Or having a candidate who has made 109 million dollars since her husband left the White House pretend to be like you by playing to your stereotypes, that all you do is drink boilermakers, bowl, and shoot guns?

This story will have life until the debate on Wednesday and the recaps Thursday. Let's hope we don't have to hear about it again until the fall.

The War: Graphic Images Ahead

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. "

-Thomas Jefferson

The Presidency of George W. Bush will be defined by the Iraq War. That much we know. More than any other American action of the new millennium the war in Iraq has defined our time. Yet we don't truly understand it. Lost in the never ending parade of explanations and justifications of why we went in, why we remain, and why there is no cohesive plan for the future, we forget there are governmental mechanics at play. We forget that Americans and Iraqis are losing their lives amidst the fallout of the decision to go to war and the succession of poor managerial decisions made in its prosecution.

PBS and it's news documentary series Frontline have made efforts to educate. Their two part series, Bush's War, is a painstaking effort to explain the run-up to the Iraq War. This is more than simply an exercise in recent history. It gives the viewer an inside look at how the war was prosecuted and why. It shows what can only be taken as President Bush's sincere belief that the war in Iraq was justifiable and winnable, and shows the step by step failure of policy and decision making. This special is important viewing for members of any political stripe, not because it justifies a political point of view. But because it promotes understanding. The characters we all remember, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Tenet and the others are there, but the characters we forget-Generals Sanchez and Casey, Ahmed Chalabi and others are also. We relive the things we saw on the evening news in thirty-second snippets, and get them in full context. From aluminum tubes to shock and awe. These terms and memories are critical to our understanding of future international diplomatic an military decisions. It is important because it breaks down how a nation makes mistakes and what policies we need to examine to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

The major question I ask myself in looking back on the war is where were our checks and balances? Specifically our unspoken but most important check, our news media. In a day and age where we have more media outlets and means of communication that ever, we experienced a media with no dissent. Images like these never made the airwaves here in America. We didn't see the searing video shot daily in Iraq. Images of coffins, dead soliders, dead Iraqis, car bombings, and all other horrendous ramifactions of this conflict are scrubbed. The media had more respect for the public in the time of the vietnam war, when the public watched newsreel, then days or weeks old of combat misssions. Now we can have video in hours and yet we skip it for pictures of Britney Spears.

Please understand that I do not believe all Americans should march in lock-step that this war was wrong or is wrong. I think every American should look at as many facts and points of view as possible and always be formulating an evolving opinion. But difficult truths and hard-to-watch footage don't make for good ratings on cable news. So instead of watching this war unfold as our parents did, or rushing to movie theaters to see newsreels as their parents did. We sit home and watch "reality TV" while we ignore reality's real problems. Many of the images included in this blog post were scrubbed from TV broadcast. Believed inappropriate for television, we watch a war the censors, and the Pentagon would like us to see. Or worse we ignore it altogether, we bask in the glow of celebrity gossip and the latest political name-calling instead of keeping our eye on the ball. It has been more than five years and we still don't fully understand this conflict, all the players involved or what our end game could be.

Let us remember that we are blessed with a free press and we must resist all governmental, societal and indeed corporate pressures on that press. It was that lack of balance, foresight and honesty that allowed the people of the United States to be duped into supporting this war in the first place.

The Rise of Politico.com

One of the things we try to discuss at Policythought is media coverage. In every avenue of our democracy a free and unfettered press is the unwritten check and balance to our government. We've watched the media change the way politicians and citizens interact and how issues become important within our society.

But what happens when the media can actually change a story? What happens when a media outlet becomes capable of actually changing the way something like say a presidential primary works? That's what happened last week and its what's been happening rapidly since politico.com came on the scene.

Remarkably, Politico was founded little more than a year ago, when John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei left the Washington Post to create a website that covered politics 24/7. In that short window of time Politico hasn't simply become another website in a sea of websites on politics. It has in no uncertain terms become a powerful force in shaping political debate.

Take last week for example. Senator Obama had a very tough week dealing with the Rev. Wright issue and the remaining fallout. But by the time Sunday and the talk shows came around it was one headline story on Politico that had all the pundits talking. The title was Story behind the story: The Clinton Myth. That story changed the week's narrative from simply "Obama had a tough week." to "Obama had a tough week, but Clinton still can't win." Politico, with its decisive insight and strong worded reporting of the mathematical reality cut through the mountains of spin coming from both camps to highlight the reality of the campaign and shift the focus of the debate.

When was the last time a media outlet did that?

What war?

For those who were celebrating Easter on Sunday, you might not have had time to notice the little reported fact that American casualties in Iraq have now reached 4000. What was even more interesting in a BBC article was their assertion that Americans are quickly losing interest in the Iraq war as opposed to a few months ago. I think you would agree that even CNN has strayed from their once rabid coverage of the Iraqi conflict. Most Americans couldn't tell you how many americans died in Iraq, but they can give you a blow by blow of the Brittany Spears saga in sequential order. I have always thought Fox News was a joke, where even at the height of the conflict the lead story would be "Camel Escapes from Zoo, Public Runs for Life". Aside from the movie Stop Loss, Hollywood has seemed to cool on their message of ending the war when compared to only a year or two ago. Why? Why does it seem like the media has somehow forgotten to report on one of the most compelling daily stories aside from the upcoming election? It's because we the public have lost our desire to hear about it. It could be that Americans are more preoccupied with losing their homes and the phantom recession (that the current administration will not recognize).  I'm not really a chest thumping kinda guy who loves the machismo of war, but people need to stop and recognize the sacrifice that our soldiers are making every day. Regardless of how one feels about the war, it's shameful that it's become back-page news. It's gut check time people, either you really care about ending this thing or you don't. Please don't use it as political fodder every fall and then forget about it for the other nine or ten months a year. 

Pangea Day: The World Comes Together Online

Once upon a time, when Jesus-horses roamed the earth (the heathen call them dinosaurs), the world comprised of one giant land mass we long after proclaimed as "Pangea." All earth. One earth. One planet. Then, one day - let's say Tuesday - a geographic shift began as the tectonic plates of the earth shifted. This broke the planet into the 7 magnificent continents we have today (though I have long had a serious bone to pick with Australia being both a country and a continent). And that is how the world has remained.

But now, a group of media moguls, including Mister Live Aid himself Bob Geldoff, are trying to bring the world back together in a multimedia event that calls itself the "first global campfire." It is Pangea Day. According to the event's official Web site:

On May 10, 2008 - Pangea Day - sites in Cairo, Dharamsala, Kigali, London, New York City, Ramallah, Rio de Janeiro, and Tel Aviv will be videoconferenced live to produce a program of powerful films, visionary speakers, and uplifting music. The program will be broadcast live to the world through the Internet, television, digital cinemas, and mobile phones. Following the event, the Pangea Day organizers will facilitate community-building activities around the world by connecting inspired viewers with numerous organizations which are already doing groundbreaking work.

Personally, I think this is superb. For all the celebrity gossip, porn, bad consumer generated media and wildly off-base muckraking (as blogged about on this site) that the Internet enables, the Web and Web 2.0 social networking create a true platform for education, collaboration, communications and art. I, for one, am wildly intrigued by the Pangea Day project and will be keeping a close eye out for more information. What first got my attention? This actually quite fantastic piece of viral video created by the Pangea Day people. If they wanted to get my attention, they certainly succeeded. More to come as Pangea Day comes together.

What YouTube Can't Replace

One of the issues facing our democracy is the use of New Media. The founders believed a free press was an invisible check and balance on the power of democratic government. It was that belief that enshrined protection of the press into our constitution. Many have lamented the consolidation of our media outlets and the closing of newspapers. Still others have written that the rise of the internet and the power of independent media with a low cost of entry into the marketplace of ideas will eventually tilt the balance of power back to the citizenry.

While, I am enthusiastic member of that independent media, I have news for the blogosphere and the Youtubers. All of our efforts, while important to the national discourse on ideas and debates, do not replace well-funded, unencumbered independent journalists, and journalistic outlets. As good a blogger or youtuber as someone might be, odds are they have a nine-to-five and can't dedicate the time or energy necessary to digging layers and layers deep into a story.

I submit as evidence the recent Walter Reed Scandal, uncovered by the Washington Post. Too often the media are simply mouth pieces for public figures with press kits, but this time around Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull dug deep and found a story on the profound lack of care our soldiers were receiving. The story quickly broke nationally and opened up an entirely new debate on the kind of care our soldiers should be entitled too.

Professional journalists trained in objectivity and ethics are an increasing rarity in our media. And for all of the added heat of the web, the 24-hour news cycle, the blogosphere, and YouTube, there isn't much light being shed on the issues of the day.

Mad Dog McCain Chews Out NY Times Reporter

Contrary to the adjacent image, I'm not going to rail on "Senator Hothead." It was simply too hilarious an image to pass up. Rather, I'm going to wholeheartedly applaud Senator McCain for calling out a NY Times reporter today for being the insulting, rabble-rousing nimrod she was. Why must we seek out controversy at every turn? This presidential race is exciting enough based solely on the personalities, the policies and the passions of the candidates. Not to mention, they create enough of a stir without a low-brow attempt at building more party animosity by bringing up an alleged private conversation between McCain and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. As McCain so eloquently reminds the reporter, "I don't describe private conversations. Why should I? Then there's no such thing as a private conversation." A MOTO (Master Of The Obvious) statement, no doubt. But, honestly...is this indicative of a deeper vendetta The Times has against the Senator? As if the terribly supported lobbyist shenanigans weren't enough? Come on, guys. You're not making it any easier on yourselves. Check out the entire exchange below...gotta love the part when the photographer who couldn't care less suddenly takes interest. Still, I say a real story would have been if McCain had tossed the crazy biatch out da plane Indian Jones style, then casually turned to the press corp and coolly stated "No ticket." Now, that's what I would call straight talk!

Covering a School Shooting

Does media coverage of campus shootings make them more popular among the deranged? Is the desire to go out in a guaranteed blaze of glory push those who want the attention even further. I explored the web for some opinions on it....

Quark Soup seems to think the media has fetishized the school shooting.

This discussion board serves as a living record of people's immediate reactions to the shooting ranging from emotional outbursts to policy thoughts.

The J Junkie, launched the bull's eye critique at CNN.

What strikes me about the coverage is a google search for "northern illinois shooting" registered 349,000 hits and the event is less than 35 hours old. The sheer magnitude of the coverage, the descriptions of the events are titillating-the pump action rifle, the counts of shotgun shells and bullet casings, the accounts of those that heard it nearby. The scramble for video footage. For a few days at least this shooting will be THE big thing. In an age where there is coverage, and then coverage of coverage, and then blogs about both, news for better or worse becomes viral public discussion. An incredibly ruthless and deranged act of violence gets to ripple over the water for much longer than even in the days of Columbine. This blog is no exception as we will now show up somewhere in the search engines under Northern Illinois Shooting. The media specifically and society at large have a responsibility to cover these events more responsibly. Media coverage spurs heavy reaction from the left and right, and then all coverage disappears as we move on to the next event.

Does that burst and disapearance lead to more polarization? In the case of a school shooting immediately the left says that if there were more psychological evaluations and tighter gun laws this wouldn't happen, then the right immediately responds that if everyone were free to carry a gun and defend the themselves people would think twice before they start shooting. Then the coverage goes away the last thing people thinking about or listening to, not a voice of moderation thinking about a compromise that might make us safer without infringing too deeply upon the 2nd amendment, but only of the extreme points of view on the subject.