New Media vs. Old School

Even though I have apparently channeled Lippmann in past course discussions (sadly without having previously known his work), I have to say that I am somewhat in the middle between Dewey and Lippmann in my views. I am equally unfamiliar with Dewey beyond the few paragraphs in the Alterman article. I do agree that no one person can know everything and I agree that the professionals who get paid to focus on one aspect of the news will most likely have more understanding of the information than I do. If they were passionate about finding the information and I can rely on their professionalism, then they are providing a valuable service worthy of compensation since the average person will not have access to the same information nor have the time to assemble it into something worthwhile.

As for Dewey, I feel that there is something to the public discourse informing the thoughts of others and creating a somewhat collective knowledge base as in the case of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is never really an end-source for information, it is a start point. If one needs the gist of something or a brief knowledge blast, then it serves its purpose well. Public opinion, i.e. the public knowledge base, provides an excellent start point. There within the public discourse lies the seed of truth, problem, or solution although I personally feel that there is no such thing as the truth, only varying perceptions of it (relativity). It is after this point that an interested journalist can expand and investigate. I would guess that the seed for most stories in journalism starts with rumor, hearsay, or opinion.

Some additional thoughts on the plight of the papers:

Based on our recent readings and discussions, newspapers seem to be failing because they are being poorly managed. They need to embrace the internet and let go of the print, reinvest the print cost savings in the internet and build their online presence aggressively. In a society being transformed by a greening economy (finally), the idea of reading something that is timely for a day is hugely wasteful, whether recycled or not. There needs to be a divorce of “news” and “paper.” There are huge profits to be made in online archived articles as well as timely readership. They need to embrace this change wisely, with a phase out of print over the period of a year, possibly two. If the investors are upset, then maybe instituting a skunk works is in order. If the quality of news is improved, the readership will follow it to the web as will a healthy bottom line, hopefully without further loss in quality reporting.

Technology and innovation changes that occur don’t generally render its predecessor obsolete, but rather transforms its usage by its availability. Painting was not sacrificed to photography, radio was not done-in by television, still photography was not ruined by video. Newspapers may need to adapt, but they don’t need to disappear. The word "print" is open enough to mean "viewed on a screen or device." Each new item is influenced by its predecessor, maybe even informed by it, but not replaced. The funny thing is, print newspapers have inadvertently created the blogosphere while trying to maintain the status quo and satisfy investors. The news gap created by their own poor decision making as the lumbering Goliath has created their own competition and the flight of their readership to the very medium they have been slow to embrace.

Lippmann-like, but Open for Feedback

While personally, I agree with Lippmann’s insight in to the role of journalism in a complex society, I maintain it is not an ideal set up due to potential for abuses of power. The general public is in need of experts of topics to explain their relevance in layman’s language. No one person can devote the time and energy necessary to have a depth of understanding on such a diverse world of topics. We must defer to experts but with the potential for these experts to mislead, knowingly or not, they must be available for questioning and vetting. Standards of reporting by the experts must be maintained.

The best cases for Dewey I have recently viewed was a RAND study on developing Democracy in nations such as Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan where Progressive thinkers exist, have an audience, but a safe platform for informal sharing needs to be provided.
RAND’s theory stands that Democratic thought in a region cannot be imposed but must rise organically. Providing the forum for discussion can enable that and highlight it.
One cannot understand the environment if one does not participate in the setting. So the initiative must come from the citizens themselves. They must become citizen journalists with a deep understanding of
Self-censorship and responsible content: “ In volatile settings, one must consider the impact of ones words.” Said one Iraqi Blogger. In my estimation this is the highest role public can play journalism, letting their voice and experience be heard clearly either though representatives or responsibly for themselves.

"A free press," said Churchill "is the unsleeping guardian of all the other rights that free men prize. It is tyranny's greatest foe."

The traditional newspaper shifting to the internet could create more opportunities for reader and community input by using the “mullet strategy” employed by the Huffington post, With a classic front page of stories including “Boring but Important” news that readers may not have readily chosen but should be aware of, written by journalism professionals and vetted through editorial process followed by more personalized sections of local and/or personal interest topics. The “Boring but Important” section could report on topics that the public need know about but may not have enthusiastic interest in pursuing like congressional voting, changes in tax laws, or business trends.

The public is indeed like a deaf observer at he back of a sporting event…. and we need someone with an elevated viewpoint to give up the blow by blow reporting of events and help us gather context and history surrounding it Perhaps this all-seeing educator is not entirely objective, welcome to the human condition. They can make an effort at unbiased inquiry and then form an opinion, or not.
Perhaps this educator is not all-seeing, but they have more of a view than I. I personally want to get my news from a source who is better informed than I on a topic. I want an educator who can lead me through questions and let me then discuss further with people interested in the topics. Sometimes the expert does not have all the information, then the conversation needs to include those who do.

Most certainly there is room for citizen journalism. The beauty of a blog is that opinions may fly free. The distinction is that this is not news. It is a conversation. These conversations can become news but their most important function is to connect communities of like minded folk. Oppositional communities are formed as well in the process. Indeed an entire spectrum of communities pop up quite organically. They remain however, in need of a common starting point, a set of facts from which to work.

The best current media can do is provide a platform for citizen journalist participation without sacrificing professional principles of journalism. These two realms need be clearly divided and marked lest reporting fall in to opinion shouting matches of the lowest common denominator.

Dewey and the Internet

In the Lippmann verses Dewey ideology war, I agree with some of Lippmann’s sentiments, but have to side with Dewey. Like me, Dewey agreed with Lippmann’s assessment of some of the flaws of journalism and the public’s easy manipulation. However, Dewey recognized that trusting democracy to a few select people is a recipe for disaster and abuse. It also goes against the primary points that differentiate the United States from other nations.

While I agree with Dewey, I think that Alterman summarized the best argument for Lippmann when he wrote:

“Lippmann’s preferred solution was, in essence, to junk democracy entirely. He justified this by arguing that the results were what mattered. Even “if there were a prospect” that people could become sufficiently well-informed to govern themselves wisely, he wrote, “it is extremely doubtful whether many of us would wish to be bothered.”

Especially today, it is clear to me that not everyone wants to be bothered enough to be well informed. People are quick to gloss over important, substantive issues and instead focus on distractions from the issues. Furthermore, with so many news options, I think becoming well informed is becoming more of a challenge. It takes a lot of time to evaluate many news organizations. To be well informed you can’t get all of your information from one place.

So, what could newspapers, television or other traditional media do to create more opportunities for public participation and deliberation?

I think the Huffington Post is on to something. In leveraging the knowledge of its readers to challenge the media, they change the discourse. I think more news agencies could benefit from that type of public participation. With that concept in mind, I believe new media – the Internet specifically, is the most efficient way for the public to participate in democracy and in the news. The Internet allows for the fastest and most collaborative form of information sharing. I am interested to see how that will impact this election.

Democracy and the Public

Please reread Eric Alterman's piece from the New Yorker, "Out of Print" and focus on the disagreement between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey about the role of journalism.

Lippmann draws a connection between the professionalization of journalism, and the declining participation of the public in politics:

"Aside from biennial elections featuring smaller and smaller portions of the electorate, politics increasingly became a business for professionals and a spectator sport for the great unwashed—much as Lippmann had hoped and Dewey had feared. Beyond the publication of the occasional letter to the editor, the role of the reader was defined as purely passive."

Questions:
1) Do you agree with Lippmann that the work of governing a complex modern society is best left to professionals, and the best role for the public is that of informed spectators? Or do you agree with Dewey that the public has a more important role to play?
2) If you agree with Lippmann, what's the best case you can think of for Dewey's point of view. If you agree with Dewey, what's the best argument for Lippmann?
3) What could newspapers, television or other traditional media do to create more opportunities for public participation and deliberation? What can new media do?

MPR Live Blog from the Panel Discussion Monday

I mentioned in class last night that Bob Collins from MPR was live blogging from the panel discussion about the police arresting journalists at the RNC. Since then Mr. Collins and Jason DeRusha (WCCO-tv) have been "conversing" via the blog on the topics raised and not raised Monday.

The link: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/09/journalists_and_cops_what_next.shtml

Also, here is a link to the Minnesota Daily story about the panel discussion:
http://www.mndaily.com/2008/09/23/u-hosts-forum-media-arrests-during-rnc

(BTW - I HATE that they don't credit photos on the web! Or is it a Mac thing?)

The Minnesota chapter of the SPJ (a co-sponsor of the event): http://www.mnspj.org/

The UpTake live broadcast the entire discussion: http://theuptake.org/

and finally the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) picked up the Daily story, but used my photos (sorry for the plug): http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/09/panel.html

Twitter News Feeds

Going back to our first class, we were discussing how to follow news. We were throwing around 'new media' ways to stay informed. There was some complaints about finding the right people to follow on twitter. Here is a short list of some news twitters that I found if anyone is interested.

NPR: http://twitter.com/nprnews
CNN Newsroom: http://twitter.com/CNN_Newsroom
CNN International: http://twitter.com/cnni
CNN Breaking News: http://twitter.com/cnnbrk
MSNBC: http://twitter.com/msnbc
BBC: http://twitter.com/BBC
Fox News: http://twitter.com/foxnews
AP News: http://twitter.com/APNews

WCCO: http://twitter.com/WCCOBreaking
Minn Post: http://twitter.com/MinnPost
Star Tribune: http://twitter.com/startribune

A couple of political ones for good measure
John McCain: http://twitter.com/McCainNews
Barack Obama: http://twitter.com/ObamaNews

Cunningham and McGill

The problem, as presented by both Cunningham and McGill is that being objective has boiled down to reporting in a he said/she said style. Basically collecting info from opposing viewpoints in a given situation and reporting what both sides said and claimed to have done. That leaves very little room for truth. That could very easily result in a story like “The sky is red”, where one group claims that our sky is red , and they are opposed another claiming that is purple, and the reporter cannot include a line to say that the sky looks blue. Cunningham offers the story of a reporter writing about felony cases being lost due to heavy workloads. He found what was happening, but could not get anyone to go on the record about the subject. The reporter was unable to get his story published with a source other than himself. He could not publish what he knew to be true. This is why newspapers can’t say someone is lying. Doing so would involve deeper reporting, on the record confirmation of the liars knowledge to the contrary, reporting truth (and knowing what that is), and not reporting “spin”.
Further complicating the issue is that there are many and varied expectations of the newspaper medium (and most other media as well). According to Mcgill, the list of expectations includes: fair, impartial, balanced, and objective to name a few. Those expectations don’t really all fit together. A story can be balanced but not fair, impartial, but not balanced and so on. So what to do? I would prefer to see reporting that is true, rather than “objective” as currently defined.
That brings me to the second question for our consideration; should our newspaper have a stated slant or worldview similar to their European counterparts? I think that that would be detrimental to our democracy, moving backward on an evolutionary scale, back to yellow journalism and muckraking. It might solve some of the woes of the newspaper business model, by catering a version of truth to a specific belief, but it would further divide our society.

Mainstream vs Point of View Journalism

I have to say that after reading the two articles, nothing really seems clearer in my mind. On the one hand, objectivity by the definitions given in the articles and subscribed to by the newsrooms does allow the reader to make their own conclusion from the information present, which I find enticing--it is the reason I enjoy MPR so much. They bring the guests, and ask the questions allowing the listeners to chime in to offer their points of view. I am, however, impressed with the radio journalists, and journalists in all mediums who have researched what in my mind are the burning questions and are without reserve in asking them--especially when they have a particularly controversial guest. I personally feel under served if the questions aren't asked. I really enjoy the questions that challenge my ideas and make me defend or change them.

If important questions aren't asked because someone is afraid of sounding partisan or losing their job, then they may be just buckling to the grand machine of what they think is public opinion or employment preservation and should probably become a politician instead of a journalist. This seems to be the reason that comedian-journalists are having so great an impact since they say what everyone else wants to say, and should say. They address the issues in a manner that shows the absurdity of issues and allows the real issue to surface in a more subtle and memorable way. Their jobs are safe and they have huge followings and huge salaries--the best of everything.

I personally have never been one to back down from a well thought-out and supported position just because my employment has been threatened or I might create a stir. I have often treated that as my call to action to try to instill change-- first through thoughtful communication, and if the organization still seems destined to make itself obsolete, I am happy to get out of the way. Unfortunately, I am not a comedian. While I have lived as I speak, I am also not afraid to make paradigm shifts in thought when new and better information is integrated into my knowledge network, in other words, one can't have tunnel vision either.

I guess that my answer to the question is that the reporter can play devils advocate and grill the person on the important questions that need to be raised whether public "says" they want it or not. Advertisers will be more interested in advertising without the "fringe benefits" if they see the readership or viewership has returned. It takes courage though--something that seems to be sorely lacking in today's newsrooms as the writing between the lines of the two articles we were assigned seemed to indicate.

The Iraq war was talked about in the Cunningham article and I remember back to the time when this was big news and none of the journalists that I saw were asking the tough questions. I remember thinking--"What's going on here--are they on the payroll of the White House?" I am all for deference and respect where due, but not at the sacrifice of progress in the service of the greater good. This seems to me to be the reason the public respects the news less--the trust has been lost and needs to be regained with the confidence of old-world journalism. I think Mike Meyers said a similar thing in our last class, so I apologize if this sounds like an echo, but he made sense.

Maybe the public needs to be retrained not to over-react to issues or maybe the journalists are doing a slight disservice in just presenting the sides of an issue without the meat of research and interpretation. In not expressing their own well thought out and carefully crafted opinions, maybe they are leaving the interpretation wide open. Its like putting a frame on the wall and asking people to comment on the art it contains. While many artists have done this kind of work in the past, without the understanding of the artists intent, the real communication is lost.

KARE report on dropping charges against journalists at RNC

Airdate: Friday, 10 p.m., Sep. 19, 2008

Ask Donald Rumsfeld about access

As I read the articles by Cunningham and McGill I was particularly looking for solutions to the problem of maintaining access when those you write about consider your work to be biased and of a nature that it reflects negatively on them, on their business or on the institution.
I didn't find what I wanted to read.

One of the three government institutions that I would suggest has the greatest impact on our lives is that of the Department of Defense. Holding media credentials there is is generally a measure of one's success as a journalist. Yet, it was those that held those credentials that let us down at the start of this "Global War on Terrorism."

Tell me where Mr. Cunningham or Mr. McGill tells us how a journalist that would have done his or her job at Pentagon briefings during the build-up to the war would have retained their access by agressively taking on Donald Rumsfeld. The flippant answers that went unchallenged by seasoned reporters all because concern for their access to the Pentagon briefing room. Rumsfeld owned the room. He decided which questions he would give credence to, which he would answer seriously, and which he would use to marginalize a journalist.

Eric Black gives serious reflection to how he could have or should have reported on Bachman's mean streak. Let's now hear the same thoughtful reflection by those correspondents in the Pentagon briefing room that marginalized their impact by showing clips that featured Rumsfeld taking on the media as humor as opposed to a portrayal of a senior government that wouldn't answer the question.

Yes, it was all about access to be able to get in that briefing room for the opportunity to even ask a question. But what good does it serve if the questions and follow-ups (assuming there are some) aren't seriously answered or pursued..

Owning partisan leanings - good or bad?

Would the U.S. public be better or worse served if our mainstream news outlets were explicitly partisan? In my opinion - and at the risk of sounding non-committal, yes and no. I think for transparencies sake, it would be one way to be more up front with readers, instead of having columnists attempt to project a non-partisan view, when they don't have one. That said, by identifying which way your columnists lie, you also run the risk of attracting readers that only agree with the columnist's point of view. People tend to tune into the news that is telling them what they want to hear, with the slant at which they want to hear it. It's a tricky point and I am not convinced there is a right thing to do in this case. I look forward to the discussion about it.

In Preparation for Eric Black's Visit...

Hi Class,
In preparation for Eric Black's appearance next Wednesday, please read the articles by Cunningham and McGill originally assigned for this week, and consider the following questions: (Please post a response to at least one of them):
1) What explanations do Cunningham and McGill offer for why it is difficult for journalists to say explicitly when someone is lying? What solutions do they offer?
2) In the U.S., most mainstream press outlets try to maintain a stance of neutrality in their news columns. In Europe, most mainstream press outlets have an identifiable political point of view - e.g., the Times of London and Figaro in France are right-of-center, while the Guardian (UK) and Liberation (France) are left of center. Would the US public be better or worse served if our mainstream news outlets were explicitly partisan?

Also, please read the following articles and come prepared to discuss them with Eric:
http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/07/23/bachmanns-mean-streak/ Pay special attention to Eric's discussion of why he didn't write about this story when he was at the Star Tribune.
For balance, you can (optional)also read Eric's two-part series that starts with http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/07/23/bachmanns-mean-streak/ and we can ask Eric why none of the major news outlets covered this story while Mike Hatch was still in office.
And thanks to John See for finding this piece by David Brauer in MinnPost, which should be good grist for our conversation with Eric:
http://www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer/ Strib editor: Political reporters should ask themselves, 'If I were running ...'

VIDEO: New Media, New Standards? Ethics in Online Journalism

Hi all,
I found this after talking with Kathy about the The Silha Center
for the Study of Media Ethics and Law upcoming lectures. I missed it and just wanted to share in case anybody else did and wants to check it out. Seems like it was a good show. (March 08)

New Media, New Standards? Ethics in Online Journalism

Lies and politics

In reviewing the Star Tribune, MinnPost, and the Pioneer Press, the coverage of these issues is sparse – which is an issue in itself. But in relation to Krugman’s claims, he appears to be right about Palin’s lie about the ‘Bridge to nowhere.’ A story in today’s Star Tribune addresses that issue and the fact that the McCain campaign is piecing together an Alaskan-based damage control operation to spin the many issues coming to light about Palin’s past, notably “Troopergate.” The only one of these publications that mentioned the sex education claim was the Pioneer Press, which didn’t debunk the lie, but had a source criticize the Obama campaign for not calling the claim a lie fast enough. I have not been able to find reporting on any alleged Obama campaign lies.

I agree with Krugman’s take on these issues. The reality of it makes me disappointed in politics, yet again. It’s no wonder so many people become disenfranchised. Who wants to be lied to?

Bridge to Nowhere and K Sex Ed: Flurries or Blizzard

Krugman does seem to have something here about the blizzard of lies. I have to say that I have become numb to television commercials and stump speeches, generally by the least favored candidate du jour that seem to distort rather than inform. I am also numb to political rhetoric at the podium. I am a person whose mind is made up long before the mudslinging begins, but there is a significant disservice created by the distortions to the public good. Just because the statisticians decide negative ads are more effective in swaying the market doesn’t make the approach right—nor does it speak well of the candidates morals in producing and approving them.

Politico, one of the internet news services I am tracking did address this in an article yesterday (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13490.html) which may be in reaction to the Krugman column. It seems to state that ridiculous distortions have been a part of the political fabric for a long time with which I agree. I think the difference here is that the general public can now access these facts themselves as Krugman suggests which means that the politics as usual that the McCain camp has been using is an outdated and outmoded form of campaigning. Obama’s camp seems to understand this which is why they have not been exposed by the media for the same degree of blatant offenses as McCain/Palin. McCain is under the old world advertising ideas that if one repeats a lie often enough, one can believe it themselves and if one’s target demographic—the passive public/one issue voter hears it often enough, then it will become a truth in their minds as well. I believe the cliché is “preaching to the converted” or “preaching to the choir.”

Re: The Bridge Issue
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
This was also echoed in several other media outlets.

This is a link to another fact check.org article addressing the Obama Kindergarden Sex Ed issue which seems to be a distortion from its true nature as a bill designed to teach children how to recognize child sex predators and their inappropriate sexual behaviors. I'll let you read for yourselves.

Re: The Sex Ed Issue
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

A Blizzard of Lies? What Role for the Press?

In an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, "A Blizzard of Lies," liberal columnist Paul Krugman accuses the McCain campaign of telling "out-and-out lies...", and "making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again."

Krugman speculates that the McCain campaign thinks that they can get away with lying because the press won't hold them accountable:

"Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”"

Please read the piece in its entirety, aswell as the assigned essays by Brent Cunningham and Doug McGill, and then turn to one (or more) of the media outlets you have been tracking and consider the following questions:
(You don't have to answer all of these questions, but please offer a few paragraphs of your thoughts, and come to class prepared to discuss these issues. )

Is Krugman correct in his claim that Palin lied about her position on the Bridge to Nowhere, and that the McCain campaign lied about Obama's position on sex education for kindergarteners? Where can you find evidence to support or refute his claim? (If you can find evidence to support or refute Krugman's claims, please link to them in your response.)
How did the media outlet you are covering report these claims? Do you find examples of the kind of "balancing" that Krugman refers to?
Can you find examples where the Obama campaign has lied? If so, how have the media handled these cases?
What explanations do Cunningham and McGill offer for why it is difficult for journalists to say explicitly when someone is lying? What solutions do they offer?

The Now of News: An Opinion

NPR—dominant source in my information gathering
National News—normal secondary or tertiary news source
Politico—new news source added for this assignment
And as an extra: Fox News Local Affiliate coverage of the RNC
This, of course, is not the extent of my information gathering, but were the selected areas I chose for this assignment.

I have found through this experience that trying to add a new method of receiving the news, i.e., Politico, takes a lot more effort than I expected. I have my news sources and follow them within the context of what my schedule permits. I pay much more attention to news that comes from email sources to which I subscribe as well as industry publications. I am not normally a news “reader” since reading requires more dedicated time than I can normally devote to my news gathering. I do however read the news when sitting and waiting for food to be prepared, or at a break moment in my routine when a newspaper makes itself available. One might call me a “news opportunist”—something that I believe has or could become more prevalent. The reason I like NPR/MPR so much is that it allows me to work on other things while getting the news, or to listen when driving. The national news has often played a secondary roll in my information gathering, since it allows the multitasking of eating dinner or relaxing before the evening activities start. While I realize this is beyond the assignment my self analysis of how I gather news—an unexpected learning byproduct of this assignment, I will now address the questions we were supposed to address.

While admittedly my news opportunism was less this week than other weeks due to some extraordinary circumstances, I did manage to watch the last night of the republican convention covered by Fox news’s local affiliate. Several things became apparent. Obvious effort was undertaken on Fox’s choice of camera shots within the Republican National Convention designed to show a broader diversity of participants. The result of this coverage was seemingly a spectacle designed to change the traditional homogenous perception of the Republican Party by a news gathering organization. It was way over-the-top and I suspect not a true proportional representation of the attendees as one would hope to find in objective journalism. I think after a while some of the people who were constantly on-camera soon became uncomfortable for the extra attention they were given over their fellow delegates.

Fox’s coverage unfortunately was in touch with the teargas action rather than the peaceful protests—as dictated by the viewing public who is sadly more interested to watch in drama over reality—myself included. I have to say, it is much more interesting to watch a conflict rather than a peaceful group, but the distortion occurs in our minds since peaceful actions are rarely given the same airplay relative to their time, frequency and magnitude within which they occur. I remember seeing one brief image of the peaceful gatherings but many images of the escalations. The escalations for obvious reasons make compelling photographs and stories. In this particular instance, the teargas action was given plenty of airplay and discussion and the peaceful protests were given a few words of coverage. The irony of course is that the violent protesters got what they wanted—coverage. The other irony is that the more effective protestors, the peaceful ones, are much more effective in creating real change. This wasn’t one of the news outlets I volunteered to comment on, but since I was able to watch several hours of it on television, I thought I could do a more thorough analysis.


MPR offered two sessions, one of which was hosted by Jeff Horowich, possibly both, that was called “What does it mean to be a Democrat” and “What does it mean to be a Republican.” The people from these sessions seemed to be carefully hand picked also to challenge what the status quo about their respective parties. One could imagine those chosen were partially representative, but are probably not what one would call a broad cross section of their respective parties. It was informative and did exemplify that the stereotypes of each party are unfair. I have to admit that I was compelled to a greater level of understanding of the party opposing to my beliefs and that I disagreed with some of the interviewees that shared my political party. Much of the questioning, however seemed leading—designed with the idea of challenging the traditional stereotypes of the two parties and creating the answers before they were asked. Scripted comedy is only slightly more predictable. I am not sure whether this leading-question journalism is really the best means of showing the true faces of either party. One would need to approach the subject with the same questions for both parties and without an agenda. It is a great idea, but maybe in need of some refining to make it truly useful in evaluating ones political positions. As with science, a larger sample and greater objectivity can be effective.

Politico was a good read, seemingly very professional and objectively toned (with the exception of their accompanying videos which seemed to be designed with youth culture in mind) and I suppose offered more coverage to the Republicans due to their recent national convention. I didn’t have the luxury of balancing their coverage of the Democratic National Convention since, at that time it wasn’t a traditional part of my media mix, and our seminar had not yet started. There was, as with all of the coverage of this last week, very little coverage of the issues and far more public vetting for McCain’s Vice Presidential.

There were plenty of articles that seemed to be addressing poll numbers which of course means nothing when the issues are no longer being discussed. I can’t remember that last time I heard anything about health care, or the economy that went beyond sound bites and filler dialogue. The public gets what the public wants, whether it really needs it or not. At present, the campaigns seem to be touting, and the media seems to be covering, non-issues, inter-party jabs, and polling numbers. Politico was no exception within the scope of the few visits I made to its website, I can’t say that I read every article or looked at it daily and so this may be an unfair assessment since I have very little history with this news source. History with one’s attended media sources is important since one can understand when there are biases and have a better understanding of the objectivity of the news provider.

The NBC national news followed suit, albeit with much less gusto and depth of information. One could get more information from going to the internet to follow up on stories of interest, but definitely lacked in depth coverage on the actual television shows. They generally offered the highlights which is what they are designed to do—provide a thumbnail sketch of the day’s happenings to an overtaxed public. That being said, even the national news highlights, while better edited for content, still tended toward the sensational albeit less than the local “happy talk and human interest” news coverage.

MPR, while a little harder to find the time to listen this week as much as I had when employed as a staff photographer, generally chose experts and allowed listener call-ins which I found informative. It is a great way to get a cross section of coverage and it is a great way to tap into the interests and diverse opinions of the listeners. It is of course limited to MPR listeners which is a drawback, but they do get interesting guests that challenge pre-existing ideas and offer new opinions. It is the filling station of my personal media mix.

1st Huff Post re: 'McCain-Palin Lies': Gatekeepers v. Watchdogs

Mr. Belaga in HuffPo today expressed his concern for the media questioning "whether [they] will be vigilant watchdogs...or fall back on the role they've played most of McCain's career: lapdog."

That's one lapdog with as vicious a bite as I have ever seen. Last fall McCain's campaign was declared "hopelessly-imploded" in chorus by the same media who had supposedly exposed their "maverick...pandering to the religious Right." That very 'lap dog' exploited McCain's 'illegitimate' child. (later divulging it was adopted), his 'addict'- wife, (brief pain pills problem post-surgery), his alcoholic Father (after years of recovery), questioned his personal faith, his fidelity, his patriotism. I am all for watchdogs, but never could stand dogs who bark at every passing car, especially little ones.

Local reporting needs more energy

In general, it seems that the American electorate is just barely well informed enough to be considered “free and self-governing,” as described in the article from class. I think that there is a significant percentage of the population that makes it a point to be as informed as possible, but a great majority of people that do not. I hope that these groups balance each other out, but I fear that I am being too optimistic.

For this week’s assignment, I looked at the coverage in the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, and MinnPost. In regards to the questions posed and the issue of energy, including gas and price, I think all of the publications can make improvements on the way in which they inform the public about these issues in preparation for the November presidential elections.

Some of the key points of information I would need to have on this issue, would include specifics on the voting record of the nominees on energy related bills, a breakdown of their financial contributors with ties to energy-related companies, their stance on drilling for oil in protected areas, and details their long-term energy plan. It would also be essential to have a proper grasp of where the country stands in relation to energy now and who the major stakeholders are.

In the Star Tribune, for example, there is consistent coverage of the price of oil and the related fluctuations, but little intensive reporting on the voting records on energy-related bills and renewable energy options. This gap leaves voters at a disadvantage. If they don’t know the basics of the issues, distracting minutia will override. I am looking forward to more information and hearing what they have to say in the debates.

The Economy and more

The economy is tops on the list of important issues, and I feel that is appropriately placed. Questions that I feel need to be answered to keep the electorate informed are:
1. What are the candidates positions?
2. What influenced those positions? (i.e. who are the economic advisers, what are their backgrounds, are the positions backed up by empirical data, etc)
3. What is the candidate experience in this arena?
4.What is the candidates record in this area?
5. Qualified, impartial analysis of economic positions, and likelihood of success.

That being said, I have found that the Associated Press (AP.org) answers most of these questions if you dig deeply through the site. The new stories and leads tend to be about 'sound bites' and not much else. The depth is available, but one must look for it.
The area which is lacking is the impartial analysis. There is analysis but it appears to be biased, infused with opinion.

How Well-Informed Is the American Electorate?

Questions for Wednesday, September 10: In The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write that "The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing." Please consider the following questions: 1)It is sometimes said that real democracy is not possible without an informed electorate. Please read carefully the discussion of the debate between Lippmann and Dewey, on pages 21-24 of chapter 1 of The Elements of Journalism (the handout) and try to get a sense of the disagreement between them. Do you believe the American electorate is well-enough informed to be truly "free and self-governing?" Is it a realistic goal? (No need to post a comment, unless you want to, but bring your thoughts to class.) 2) Below is one recent survey of voter opinion regarding the most important issues in the 2008 presidential campaign. Between now and next Wednesday, please choose one of these issues that you find interesting or important, and consider the following questions: a) What are some of the more specific things that you would need to know about the issue, or the candidate's stand on the issue, in order to cast an informed ballot? (1-2 sentences). b) What are your initial impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of one of the news outlets you are monitoring. with regard to the issue you have selected? (Just a sentence or two about one outlet, but please come to class prepared to discuss the others.) USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 21-23, 2008. N=1,023 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "If you had to choose, which of the following issues will be most important to your vote for president: the economy, terrorism, the situation in Iraq, health care, energy, including gas prices, or some other issue?" Options rotated
	The economy	43
	The situation in Iraq	15
	Energy, including gas prices	14
	Health care	11
	Terrorism	9
	Illegal immigration (vol.)	1
	Abortion (vol.)	1
	Other	4
	Unsure	3