The Media: A Fourth Branch or A Whole Other Tree?

I begin with a video (Notice the Cameo at the end)

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

And what a time for campaigning it has been. This election season has been full of juicy media coverage, especially with the economic and foreign policy situation that our country finds itself in today. Additionally the possibility and now the obvious reality of the nation's first African-American president provided the media fuel for fiery media coverage. But, as the title of this blog suggests, the question remains, does media service as a check on government, in essence a "fourth branch" or its own "system of government with its own goals and objectives? Without understanding the American Media both in the context of everyday life and our elections it is difficult to answer this question at all.

Leighley presents the mass media in the form of a model that plays one (or more) of five distinct roles. (My commentary is in bold following each idea, all of the following is based on Mass Media and Politics, Pg. 9-12):

1. Reporters of Objective Fact- This is when the media presents the news with no mission or agenda, the reporter only presents the news in an objective and unbiased way, they simply report the facts. This would be a whole other tree model, not checking anything, just showing the facts. This is difficult as one will always see the "facts" differently.


This video would be disputed by some, if not most as cruel and biased, but this (web)reporter is just reporting the "Unbiased Facts".

2. Neutral Adversary- Questioning government without taking a position. Leighley explains that under this model "officials must carry on within full view of the press, which will question the motives, interests, and consequences of their actions." This would be a Fourth Branch model, acting as a check on government. This allows the mass media to "limit the ability of elected officials to pursue their self-interest to the detriment of public interest." (Pg. 10)

3. Public Advocate- This is when the media questions the government in the name of the public good. Not only do they question government but they take action to get the people involved as well. They must remain "financially self-sufficient in order to be free from the influence of special interests." (Pg. 10) This would also be a Fourth Branch Model, as it acts as an independent check on government.

4. Profit-Seeker- This is when mass media is obligated to its share-holders and is only in the business to make a profit. They give the people what they want, but only if that will increase their profit. This is a whole other tree model, they are not acting as a check on government, unless it is to their financial advantage.

5. Propaganda- This is when mass media is used to "support and advance the interests of those in power." (Pg. 12) This could be considered a fourth branch model as the news is being used as a function of government. For our purposes this will not be considered a fourth branch model as it does not act as a check on government. The media is a "tree" that stands there and propagandizes on behalf of the government.

Each of these models is significant in being able to understand what the goals and objectives of a specific mass media operation is. While the limitation of five categories might be oversimplification it allows one to clearly understand the argument. The media's role is defined by the perception of its viewers. If the people view the media as a poor check on government, it is in effect a poor check on government. James Fallows article "Why Americans Hate the Media" presents the idea that Americans feel that:

While movies do not necessarily capture reality, they suggest a public mood- in this case, a contrast between the apparent self-satisfaction of the media celebrities (newscasters) and the contempt in which they are held by the public...In the short run these challenges to [media] credibility are a problem for journalists and journalism. In the longer run they are a problem for democracy.

Fallows is arguing that the public perception of journalistic credibility is negative and this creates a problem for democracy. It is important to note that this article is almost 12 years old (prior to the creation of the blogosphere which changed the media game entirely, we'll get to that later.) but it still makes a clear point that media is only what the public perceives it to be.

Our Founding Fathers however had their own ideas of what role the media should play, and it seems our Founders ideas (In this case Thomas Jefferson) are close to where Fallows places the ideas of Americans:

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them. (Letter to Edward Carrington, Paris, Jan. 16 1787)

Lets assume for a moment that in the mind of Thomas Jefferson the word newspapers could be replaced by any other form or ability of a citizen to question government. In other words a blog, television program or Obama's latest and greatest idea would be a sufficient fulfillment of Jefferson's vision of the role of the media. He couldn't necessarily imagine anything other than a written document/newspaper critiquing government but to paraphrase a modern Jefferson:

"And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without blogs or blogs without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

But do blogs provide the credibility and information that Fallows suggests Americans are seeking? Before we can decide if blogs are credible enough to make the cut, we need to see that Americans are actually using blogs to gain information (for our purposes political information). The 2006 Pew "Election 2006 Online" Internet survey showed that 15% of Americans used the internet as their main source of news gathering and 20% got their information from blogs. This places the blogosphere as a significant source for those searching for political information, however a blogger is not responsible to anyone else in transmitting information. Therefore it would seem that "Modern Jefferson" might be incorrect as unlike newspapers, a blogger has no one to report to and no responsibility to check their facts. This is very much along the lines of the argument of Cass Sunstein in his article "Neither Hayek nor Habermas" in the Public Choice (2008) Journal. He Presents an argument of Federal Court of Appeals Judge Posner then refutes it:

"The newest mechanism is the blogosphere. There are 4 million blogs. The Internet enables the instantaneous pooling (and hence correction, refinement, and amplification) of the ideas and opinions, facts and images, reportage and scholarship, generated by bloggers." I (Cass Sunstein) believe that Posner's argument is wrong, but in away that provides a great deal of illumination about the operation of the blogosphere" (Public Choice Journal 2008, pg. 88)

This article goes on to show how Sunstein's argument is true in that just because the blogosphere is vast and open we are still left with a "Very diverse range of claims, perspectives, rants, insights, lies, facts, non-facts, sense, and non-sense." (Pg. 89)
While one might consider these various ideas as a check on the facts (as Judge Posner does) it is not on the same level as a Journalist who has a boss to report to and (or should have) a responsibility to their readers and viewers. Kovach and Rosenstiel explain:

In the new century, one of the most profound questions for democratic society is whether an independent press survives.

The answer will depend on whether journalists have the clarity and conviction to articulate what an independent press means, and whether, as citizens, the rest of us care.
This book is intended as a first step in helping journalists articulate those values and helping citizens create a demand for a journalism connected to the principles that spawned the free press in the first place.

Their idea of the purpose of journalism is made clear with 9 "rules" that journalists must follow to "provide the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing." But does news media really follow anything close to the ideas suggested here? In an article by Eric Boehlert he provides a critique of the media's coverage of Bush's War on Iraq. The areas in which he shows how the media failed in their coverage of Iraq (an extremely important issue) are clearly against the 9 rules that Kovach and Rosensteil suggested:

As Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler later wrote, the MSM's performance in 2002 and 2003 -- its inability and refusal to demand sharp answers to difficult questions about prewar intelligence -- likely represented their most crucial newsroom failing in nearly half a century. "How did a country on the leading edge of the information age get this so wrong and express so little skepticism and challenge?" asked Getler. "How did an entire system of government and a free press set out on a search for something and fail to notice, or even warn us in a timely or prominent way, that it wasn't or might not be there?" The single-word answer is, timidity.

Looking back, bigfoot journalists conceded they failed to do their jobs during the run-up to war. ABC's Ted Koppel admitted, "If anything, what we've been criticized for, and probably more justifiably, is that we were too timid before the war." Dan Rather agreed: "We did not do our job of pressing and asking enough questions often enough." They weren't the only ones disappointed. A majority of Americans thought the news media could have done a better job informing the public about Iraq and the stakes involved in going to war, according to an August 2005 survey conducted by the McCormick Tribune Foundation in Chicago.

Boehlert's article shows how the mainstream media failed all of the 9 rules that Kovach and Rosensteil suggest in covering Bush's declaration of War on Iraq. So we can't seem to trust the journalists, and the blogs aren't (always) reliable, where can we go for information? Perhaps a Toquevillian understanding of the blogosphere can place a bit more credibility in the hands of the bloggers:

In order that an association among a democratic people should have any power, it must be a numerous body. The persons of whom it is composed are therefore scattered over a wide extent, and each of them is detained in the place of his domicile by the narrowness of his income or by the small unremitting exertions by which he earns it. Means must then be found to converse every day without seeing one another, and to take steps in common without having met. Thus hardly any democratic association can do without newspapers.

The Toquevillian understanding of the purpose of newspapers is not necessarily to transmit information but rather to have people converse about the important issues without standing face to face. This sounds exactly like the function of a blog. Perhaps a blog, while not always factually reliable is able to take on the responsibility of being the "fourth branch." Perhaps reporting to a boss, as I suggested previously, is not the best way to guarantee integrity in media reporting. Using the film "Outfoxed" as an example, Fox News station bosses seem to have an order to create a very specific type of news cast with very specific types of goals. This video from Outfoxed's website shows how Fox News utilized the same attacks on Obama that they did on Kerry, carrying on their direct orders of smearing the Democratic candidate for president.



Using this video as an example of a news organization presenting what seems like fact, in this case that Obama is, based on polling, viewed as the most liberal Senator in Congress. Do Americans really trust the media when it comes to their presentation of polling? Surely Americans know better than that... But take Hardy and Jamieson's article "Can a Poll Affect Perception of Candidate Traits" suggests that the medias use of a few simple poll's can change the entire perception of a candidates trait, in the case of this study that President Bush is stubborn. In their conclusion Hardy and Jamieson explain that:

A main intention of this essay is to sketch the relationship between poll results and candidate evaluation, specifically attribute assessment. We believe that this relationship has a unique and important role in political campaigns. We suggest that poll results may prime character traits through agenda-setting. (Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 69 No. 5 pg. 740)

Using the 2008 election as an example we see just how hard the McCain campaign tried to ascribe the characteristic of domestic terrorist to Obama.


McCain took advantage of the fact that the idea of ascribing a characteristic to a candidate via poll or an onslaught of ads can be quite successful. Obama did this as well in making sure to, as was our advice as a class, establish the argument Mccain=Bush, and he did this well. This is an example of an ad from the Obama Campaign:


And for a video from 2004 that shows all of the different names that Bush and Kerry called each other is below (and in a fun format!)

This Land! | Funny Jokes at JibJab

So who do we have to act as this Fourth Branch and act as a check on power and keep our candidates for President in check. Perhaps, if every American read Unspun they would understand the point that Jackson and Jamieson are making:

Spin is tolerated and even admired in some circles. In Washington, a good spin doctor is lauded...But we believe voters and consumers need to recognize spin when it is used against them...or they risk going into the voting booth with false notions in their heads about the candidates. (Unspun pg. viii)

The attempt to spin the facts in the ads shown above, utilize tactics such as quoting a source out of context and misconstruing facts. These are the areas in which Jackson and Jamieson want to educate Americans to watch out for. But should that be what our media stands for? Shouldn't the media act as that fourth branch and unspin the "spun" issues? Why can't we trust them? Perhaps McChesney in his book The Problem of the Media can give us some insight:

The concept of journalism as politically neutral, nonpartisan professional, even "objective," did not emerge until the twentieth century. During the first two or three generations of the republic such notions for the press would have been nonsensical, even unthinkable. Journalism's purpose was to persuade as well as to inform and the press tended to be highly partisan. A partisan press system has much to offer a democratic society- as long as there are numerous well-subsidized media providing a broad range of perspectives. During the nineteenth century, newspapers became purely commercial. The press system remained explicitly partisan, but it increasingly became an engine of great profits as costs plummeted, population increased, and advertising- which emerged as a key source of revenue- mushroomed. (The Problem of the Media Pg. 58)

McChesney's explanation makes sense. The press has trouble staying on target if they know that it will effect their ability to provide entertaining and profitable coverage. If a story may be very important to a voting public, but it doesn't create an entertaining story, it won't make the news. I mean why else would they keep this nut job (below) on the air if it weren't for his high level of viewership (thus turning high ad revenue) and perhaps the fact that he draws (or creates) a pretty intelligent crowd? (Note: Foul Language)





Perhaps, O'Reilly uses his condescending attitude and arrogance as a way of drawing in viewers and keeping them entertained. However entertaining he might be, one cannot ignore the role that soft-news programs (for argument's sake Bill O'Reilly goes here), late-night talk shows, and The Daily Show/Colbert Report play in acting as a source of news for Americans. Matthew Baum presents the argument that those that watch soft-news programs (Daytime Talk Shows, Entertainment Tonight, and Extra are some examples) tend to be well informed about foreign issues, and he explains that:

Where America's foreign policy was once the domain of a fairly small "foreign policy elite," the soft news media appear to have, to some extent, "democratized" foreign policy. This represents both a challenge because leaders can no longer count on communicating effectively with the American people solely through traditional news outlets. (Sex, Lies, and War Pg. 106)

In other words, soft news outlets have changed the game. We can see that this year's presidential candidates made sure to appear on late-night talks shows like Letterman and Leno as well McCain and Obama making appearances on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. This is likely because these programs attract a different type of viewership. (The invention of Tivo might change the types of viewers that view each program as one can easily TIVO Letterman, catch The Daily Show and watch the TIVOd Letterman episode with ease). However, Peterson in his book Strange Bedfellows suggests that Late-Night talk shows damage democracy with their cynicism:

While genuine satire arises from a sense of outrage, the topical jokes heard in mainstream late-night monologues are rooted in mere cynicism. Unlike satire, which scolds and shames, this kind of comedy merely shrugs. Unlike Colbert whose appearance at the Correspondent's Dinner evoked a democratic revivalist, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Conan O'Brien are evangelists of apathy (Strange Bedfellows, Pg. 10)

It seems that both soft-news and late night talk shows have their flaws, Soft-News only provides knowledge on a select few hot-button issues, and late night talk shows turn politics into a joke. But what about our friends Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, are they our saviors? The Project for Excellence in Journalism provides us some insight as to the value of The Daily Show. In addition to its popularity the article points out that :

Stewart has always insisted that his show isn’t journalism and given its comedic core, its blurring of truth and fiction, and its ignoring of many major events, that is true in a traditional sense.

But it’s also true that, at times, The Daily Show aims at more than comedy. In its choice of topics, its use of news footage to deconstruct the manipulations by public figures and its tendency toward pointed satire over playing just for laughs, The Daily Show performs a function that is close to journalistic in nature—getting people to think critically about the public square. In that sense, it is a variation of the tradition of Russell Baker, Art Hoppe, Art Buchwald, H.L. Mencken and other satirists who once graced the pages of American newspapers.

Peterson in Strange Bedfellows would point out that the satire of The Daily Show is very different from the cynicism of a late night talk show. This is an important difference in evaluating the role of the Daily Show as a check not only on government, but the media as well. Whether or not Jon Stewart admits it, his television show might just be the fourth branch we are looking for.

Blogs however, play this important role of acting as a check on government and the media as well. For our purposes let us assume that YouTube is a form of media or a place for which a person can go for information. (Note: I am not trying to make a political statement by discussing Israel, but using this is a case study shows just how powerful blogs can be.) The Israel Defense Force has been using YouTube to increase their positive PR during the current war in Gaza. The IDF has been posting videos from aerial drones showing terrorists loading rockets in trucks and then the Israeli Air Force attacking. This is an effort to show that they are not attack civilians, but rather terrorists are using civilians as human shields and that the IAF is accurate in pinpointed attacks. Here is a video as an example:



However, early this morning, YouTube flagged these videos for removal as inappropriate. However, after significant blogger pressure the videos were placed back on YouTube, only if one certifies that they are 18. The point however is that a huge organization like YouTube/Google had made a decision and after the blogosphere got wind of what had happened they were able to create enough of a stir to have the videos replaced. Therefore, it would seem that if an issue came up in government and bloggers created a significant stir, the blogs would then begin to act as a check on government. Politicians who are much more accountable to their citizens than YouTube is to its consumers will very likely make policy changes based on the stir created in the blogosphere. Sounds pretty fourth branchy to me...

In Gillmor's We The Media he discusses how through the use of various internet technologies anyone can produce their own news coverage or critique of government. While he notes that:

One of the main criticisms of blogs is that so many are self-absorbed tripe. No doubt, most are interesting only to the writer, plus some family and friends. But that's no reason to dismiss the genre, or to minimize the value of people talking with each other. What excites me in this context, however, that the growing number of blogs written by people who want to talk intelligently about an area of expertise is a sign of something vital. Blogs can be acts of civic engagement. (We The Media Pg. 139)

Much like Toqueville, Gillmor sees value in people interacting about issues that are important to the everyday lives of Americans, and taking part in civil engagement. Perhaps this is the solution to the problem with the media today, who it seems is just another tree. While we may have The Daily Show to check up on the media and government here and there, if Jon Stewart doesn't recognize his responsibility we can't rely on him to be a check on government.This is what makes the blogosphere unique. Instead of relying on the media to act as a check on government, we must look inward, to the individual blogging "journalist" to be that fourth branch and ask those questions that need to be asked. The mainstream media is focused on making the story that gets the viewers to maximize profits. Even Fox News which is focused on a specific agenda, is playing to a target audience and knows that by continuting to focus their coverage on this agenda, they will maintain their viewership and by connection ad revenue. In looking at media coverage of the 2008 election one can clearly see that the media did not act as a fourth branch and provide targeted, thought provoking coverage. Rather, they provided the same bickering and bantering of the past elections and let the important issues fall by the wayside.
An example of bickering:




The blogosphere saw this as an oppurtunity and seized the moment. Perhaps the 2008 election will serve as the ultimate turning point in media coverage. Maybe, just maybe, the media will realize their mistakes and make a change for the better. But lets be honest, they never will.

A Blog By The People and For The People

Utilizing a link from CrankyDocs to CSPAN'S blog directory, I decided to "randomly" (based on their catchy titles) select two blogs from which to analyze their comments. The first is Rightwing Nuthouse and the second is Informed Comment. (The links are direct links to the comments on which I am blogging)

The Rightwing Nuthouse post is initiating a discussion regarding the interpretations of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for alleged terrorists. But, I believe, in an effort to elicit comments he attempts to make it a black and white issue:

No such wiggle room exists on the torture issue. You either excuse it or condemn it. You either see the administration as blameless, trying to elicit information that would save us from another terrorist attack, or you believe war crimes have been committed in our name.

Well he seems to ignite a discussion that creates some great comments to be able to analyze. Firstly, I present this "emotional" argument:

retire05 Said:
12:31 pm
Senario:

Your name is Mark Lundsford. Your daughter has been kidnapped and the police have John Cuey in custody and says he knows where she is as he has put her in a dark hole in the ground but won’t tell them where. The police also tell you that there is a possibility she is still alive but unless they find her soon, she will die.

Would you waterboard John Cuey to get the information on your daughter’s location? Or would you stick to your beliefs that waterboarding is torture and not to be used in any circumstances knowing that your daughter will probably die?

I have asked this question many times of those who do not support waterboarding. No one would ever give me a direct answer. Some have told me that my senario is not practical, or that is is not applicable because of our laws.

Taking the moral high ground is a great thing to do, but it will not impress one jihadist whose goal is to see Americans dead. Instead, it is considered a weakness of the “paper tiger”.

Personally, if I were seeking information from a jihadist held at GITMO, I would slaughter a pig in front of them and threaten to pour that pig blood all over them. To defeat the enemy, you must understand the enemy.

This comment is essentially arguing from an emotional perspective. They are not arguing facts, or legality issues, they are arguing on emotion. This is an example of the type of comment one might find on the Rightwing Nuthouse. Various other comments ignore clear legal precedent for the treatment of P.O.Ws and rather argue from an emotional perspective. This might suggest passion for the issue or ignorance as to the law. Regardless, this short post on the issue of torture seems to have elicited a significant response from the blog's readers.

Then you have a comment that seems to really hit the nail on the head and shows that this reader is pretty informed on the effects of this issue:

laura Said:
3:15 pm
Rick,

Thanks for a great article. I too was outraged that our great nation had stooped beneath the level of dignity and sound ethics to employ torture. A land of freedom, liberty, and justice for all became a land of evil at that level. It was EVIL!!

There is NO EXCUSE FOR IT!! If any of those who would like to protest that “all’s fair in war”... it was not war. It was prisoners of war… not active combat in a “fight” against an opponent. It was abuse of power. It was torture.

If you would like to read our Constitution, our Constitution states that we are granted INALIENABLE RIGHTS BY OUR CREATOR. We are not granted those rights by the USA. We are not granted those rights by an administration. We are not granted those rights by a military tribunal. We are not granted those rights by a Supreme Court. We are not granted those rights by US citizenship. No! We are granted certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS by our Creator.

Those who would argue for torture, I say, “Shame on you!!”. You show no respect for GOD when you show no respect for your fellow man. The Bible states, “How can you say you love God who you have not seen when you do not love man who you have seen – made in His image.” So, would ANY OF YOU who CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN agree to torture the Lord Jesus Christ?? Well, that’s what you are doing when you torture men made in His image. They are under your power and you show no restraint and no respect for God and their human rights given to them by God. That is becoming an evil empire.

Well, Rick, I’m not certain what to do about it now. It must be stopped. I believe it has been stopped. I don’t know whether it would be proper to go back and prosecute now. Honestly, it would require prosecution of the former POTUS, George W. Bush. If he is not going to be prosecuted, let none in his administration be prosecuted.

I cannot see prosecuting George W. Bush because what’s done is done. But it comes down to that. The ERROR was in not impeaching him for the sake of torture. That was sound reason to impeach a standing President. I voted for him. I voted for McCain also. But if he had been impeached on the basis of legitimating torture in his administration, I would have accepted that – and would have allowed prosecution of all in his administration who engaged in this.

To me, it’s too late. It sullied America – and it produced the winning election of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the punishment to the unthinking persons from the right who agreed with torture. McCain could just as well be a Democrat in his platform. Had he run on the Democratic ticket, I would have voted for him in my protest against torture. That’s how powerfully most Americans were against torture.

It’s cost Republicans their hold on the White House. That punishment has been rendered. I’m not certain what more can be done at this point without being hypocritical if GWB himself were not prosecuted – and I think that completely inappropriate, myself. His job is done. We do need our reputation restored. McCain stood against torture. That’s why he had my support in the primaries.

The failure to stand against torture cost the Republicans a lot in 2008. I hope they learn from it.

God bless.

So there are two quotes that I think show the various types of opinions that exist on this blog. I will analyze them in more depth after presenting some quotes from the next blog.

The second blog that I chose was informed consent. Here a post was made describing the blogger's experience at a Muslim Public Affairs Council Event at which Pastor Rick Warren, the Pastor that will be speaking at the Obama's inauguration spoke. The blogger, Juan Cole, discusses the interesting dichotomy of Pastor Warren, a pastor that is known to be anti-gay, on the same stage as Melissa Ethridge, an openly gay singer. It is this paragraph of his post that seemed to have generated the most concern:

Warren took the stage, friendly and ebullient, and implicitly complained about the bad press he has gotten since Obama announced he would read the invocation. He said that the media likes conflict, and where there is harmony there is nothing for them to report. When there is no conflict, he said, the media will create one.

Warren said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

He explicitly mentioned meeting Etheridge, and explained that he has been a long time fan of hers, beginning with her self-titled first album of 1988. "I'm enough of a groupie," he said, "that I got her autograph on the Christmas album."

Pastor Warren wanted to make it clear (or at least make it seem) that his reputation was untrue and perhaps even unfair. Heres what some commenters had to say:

At 5:48 AM, Shirin said...
"I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

That sounds like the Standard Christian Bullshit that goes something like "hate the sin, love the sinner". No thanks. And what is that "for the media's purpose" part supposed to mean?

And what is this "spiritual emptiness" he thinks needs addressing? Who is he to assume anyone is spiritually empty?

Ok, another emotionally charged argument. And perhaps something a bit more fact based:

At 2:32 PM, Anonymous said...
We're not only concerned about Prop 8, but as well Warren's support for policies that criminalize homosexuality in Uganda, including the arrest of HIV/AIDS workers who have called for prevention campaigns targeting men who have sex with men. His words in the US do not match with his actions in Africa, and his approach to HIV/AIDS directly contradicts the proven methods adopted by global public health officials and all the communities touched by the epidemic. Warren is allied with those who persecute and imprison homosexuals and deny much needed programs to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Here is the point that I am trying to make by using two VERY different blogs and finding comments that fit similar ideas. Every blog will have those that visit that are intelligent and interested in the idea and those that want to feel that they have spilled their emotions onto the pages of a blog, sometimes presenting great arguments, and sometimes presenting weak ones. I believe that it is difficult to draw conclusions from the pages of comments of a blog because those posting are so diverse. I could find my way onto a blog of presumed "ignorants" and post something intelligent just as easily as a very intelligent blogging community could have its comments ruined with a few "ignorant" comments. It would be dishonest to say that any level of analyzing of blog comments would produce any conclusive information.

I would however argue that these two blogs are representative of any other blog in that you have a diverse group of people posting, each with unique opinions on both sides of an argument.


Enjoy the first 1:20 of this video, it provides a great critique of the blogging world. (It won't embed, I will try again later)

Breaking News....On a Blog?

As some of you might know, I currently intern at the Innocence Project, a law clinic that works to overturn wrongful convictions of their clients based on DNA evidence. Unfortunately, one of the foundations that contributes heavily to Innocence Project, the JEHT foundation, was a victim of the Madoff scandal, leaving their foundation with nothing to donate. While this does not cause a direct loss of funds, the future ramifications might be quite damaging. The director of the organization, Maddy deLone explained:

Obviously, the loss of a foundation that supported us so generously will hurt us, but it's not catastrophic. The JEHT Foundation's great legacy is that it helped the Innocence Project and other organizations become more self-sufficient; over the last four years, the foundation focused on helping us diversify our base of donors so that we draw support from more individuals and other foundations. Now, in the midst of the critical holiday fundraising season, we are optimistic that even more individual donors will step up and help us move forward.

What is so significant about this (in relation to our course) is where this letter was first posted. It was not submitted to the AP, the New York Times, Reuters or any other news source, but rather it was first posted on the Huffington Post blog (as well as the Innocence Project's own blog, more about that later) . Here is in my opinion, breaking news, (as the Innocence Project plays a significant role in media and every exoneration that takes place finds its way to CNN.com) yet the first place it showed up was on a blog. To contrast, the recent release of President Joel's letter to our university didn't get posted to a blog prior to news media publishing the letter. Any news source quoting the information from the director of the Innocence Project links to or quotes the Huffington Post or Innocence Project blogs.

In researching this specific issue I discovered as well the way that the Innocence Project "breaks news". While the media will often do their own research on recent exonorees, the most up to date information as well as breaking news can be found at the Innocence Projects own blog. This is not a place for press releases or internal information but a public forum for the Innocence Project to get out their latest breaking news. However, what if the Innocence Project chose not to have this blog, how would they get their news out?

This, I think, is how blogs play a role in breaking news. What is breaking news to one person can be meaningless to another. Having a "news blog" allows for those designated individuals to post the breaking news from their own perspective. If the Innocence Project just notified the MSM as of some "breaking news" chances are that information would never get to the public. A news blog, like the Huffington Post, allows for breaking news to be released to the public quickly and efficiently. This is how blogs can play an important role in "breaking news" that the MSM might otherwise miss.

This is a BIG DEAL

I began with that video to place in context just how close President-Elect Obama is to this situation. The evidence does not seem to implicate him at this time, however we must look at what the "new media" can do with an accusation like this. They say a picture is worth a thousand words:
Need I say more. Perhaps a bit more can't hurt...

The President-Elect is already being very careful in how he handles this situation. The video above makes clear (via the U.S. Attorney General) that Obama had no involvement in this indictment of the governor. Yet still less than 24 hours later without the governor giving a plea, Obama has called on the governor to resign. I know that the evidence points strongly to guilt, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? What statement is Obama making by asking the governor to resign?

Personally, it seems that the President-Elect is being very careful to cover his bottom. This could quickly snowball into something that could destroy Obama's regime before it even begins and he must manage this situation carefully, as this hits VERY close to home. The blog community can quickly build a narrative around the few facts that exist and that could be very detrimental to Obama.

There is a burning question in my mind. What was the FBI doing tapping the governor's phone line in the first place? Is there more to this story? Time will tell...

Front-Runner: Defined and Explored

(This is Part 2 of the Previous Post)

I'd like to begin with the Wikipedia definition of Front-Runner:

Front-runner is a term to describe the leader in a race, whether political or athletic. The term arose from the close symbolism between political campaigns and athletic running events. The term is used in the U.S. Presidential primary process to label the potential nominee with the lead in the polls, the most name recognition, or most funds raised (or a combination of these).

Not to be confused with this equally exciting Front-Runner:


I would like to address this definition before I give my answer to the open question I left before.
Firstly, the Wikipedia definition specifically attributes the term front-runner to the Presidential Primary. This suggest that perhaps there is a much more significant value to being a front-runner in the primary than in the general election. I would propose that due to the structure of our primary system (different states at different dates) a candidate has much more of an ability to benefit from the snowball effect of being the front-runner. A presidential primary front-runner is not considered as such because of polling and fund raising success but rather because he is actually winning elections. This is why I believe that front-runner status is much more significant by a primary and this seems to be what the Wikipedia definition suggests. (While analyzing a Wikipedia definition may seem odd, I think in this circumstance it has significant value.)

Secondly, the definition is "the leader" in a race. The question is, who decides this? Is it the media? It is polling? Can two newspapers declare two different front runners? These questions make it difficult to truly define a front-runner outside of media coverage. The 2008 Presidential election is a perfect example, despite the fact that post- Republican Convention McCain developed a lead in the national poll, (The national convention was September 1-4 FYI) he was never declared the front-runner. (Perhaps this is the liberal media bias, but I'd argue otherwise).

Rather I would argue that the front-runner in a national election (in contrast to a primary) is solely a product of the media. There is no real way to prove a front-runner when it comes to a national election. There can be a front-runner in polls that is different from the front-runner in fund-raising creating a difficult question of who actually receives the title of "front-runner". That decision comes from the media. In a primary, the front-runner can be determined by which candidate at any given point in a primary is leading with electorate votes. This can change early on the primary season as seen here and here by McCain and later in the season as seen from here (CBS declaring Sen. Clinton the front-runner) and then later here (CBS) declaring Obama the front-runner.

This media's determination of a front-runner can very quickly shift in the primary season, but seems to stay fairly firm once the national election campaign begins. (I am not firm about this second proposal but please provide me data to the contrary if I am incorrect). I therefore believe that outside of a primary election the term front-runner is solely a media construct which benefits the "media anointed front-runner" significantly and there is nothing the underdog can do but sit back and watch.

Cartman and Bart: Fans of the Underdog

After watching the South Park episode I came away with a basic message, every time we choose to vote for an elected official we are choosing between the better of two terrible things, as South Park’s writers said so well a “Giant Douche” and a “Turd Sandwich”. Even still, as Stan learned the hard way, we still should feel an obligation to vote.

The Simpson’s had a basic message as well, politicians are frequently corrupt (as shown by the forged voting by Sideshow Bob) and Homer presents an example of the kind of accusations thrown at Obama voters this election, , that they didn’t vote for their candidate based on policies, but rather on what made them happy, but we know this isn't the only time Homer has trouble voting:



Ok, so there’s your (VERY!) quick summary of the episodes. However, I think there was a common message the two different TV shows were trying to present, the media frenzy that surrounds the front-runner and the downfall of the underdog. Cartman and Butters supported the “Turd Sandwich” Underdog and Homer supported Mayor Quimby. While they supported their candidates for very different reasons (Cartman supported his own “creation” and Homer’s arch-enemy, Sideshow Bob running against Mayor Quimby), the message that their support for the underdog creates is the same, the fanfare surrounding the front runner is comedic in nature in how it belittles the underdog.

This is first portrayed in the Simpsons with the Mayor Quimby and sideshow Bob. Once Sideshow Bob is clearly being portrayed as the front-runner, he can almost do no wrong. He is a known criminal yet it doesn’t stop the rest of Springfield from jumping on the bandwagon. Mayor Quimby is made to look dumb in the debate, (ala Nixonesque). Even one of his own ads makes him look dumb (Yes, perhaps he ran a bad campaign but I'm trying to establish as connection between the Simpsons election episode and South Park):

Singers: Without a Mayor Quimby, our town would really sink,
         [a garbage truck with a "Vote Quimby" ad empties a bin]
        We wouldn't have a tire yard, or a mid-size roller rink.
         [Quimby grins next to burning tires, then roller skates]
        We wouldn't have our gallows, or our shiny Bigfoot trap,
         [Quimby grins through noose, then smiles next to trap]
        It's not the mayor's fault that the stadium collapsed.
         [Quimby surveys damage sadly, then shrugs and smiles]
 Voice: Quimby.  If you were running for mayor, he'd vote for you.
        Paid for by the "Mayor Quimby for Mayor" Mayoral Committee.
-- A campaign ad for Diamond Joe, "Sideshow Bob Roberts"

In South Park this power of the front-runner is a bit tougher to spot. I'm going to assume the front-runner is "Giant Douche" because of the significant margin of victory. The episode portrays the difficulties Cartman faces in his door to door campaigning. He even had to give two butterscotch candies just to keep one characters attention. It seems ironic that when the results were announced, they said that the numbers were close, despite the fact the "Giant Douche" won by a significant amount of votes. This I think displays the cynicism that the media frequently displays in landslide election results. The media portrayed Obama as the frontrunner until the finals moments before the election and especially on the day of. If everyone knew who was going to win, no one would watch their programs.

I know this argument may not be the strongest, but I am trying to call attention to the advantages that a front-runner receives. Both from the voting public and especially for our studies, the media. I want to pose a question for discussion based on some of the ideas discussed here: does a front runner receive additional positive media coverage because of his front-runner status and how does this effect election coverage?

Boehlert's Hindsight

After reading Boehlert's article "Lapdogs", one would be quick to criticize the media and view Boehlert as the savior of the people. His opening paragraphs alone paint a picture of the media that makes them look weak and useless:

"It's unlikely viewers expected "an argument" that night in the East Room. But what about simply asking pointed questions and firmly requesting a direct response? On March 6, even that was beyond the media's grasp. The entire press conference performance was a farce -- the staging, the seating, the questions, the order, and the answers. Nothing about it was real or truly informative. It was, nonetheless, unintentionally revealing. Not revealing about the war, Bush's rationale, or about the bloody, sustained conflict that was about to be unleashed inside Iraq. Reporters helped shed virtually no light on those key issues. Instead, the calculated kabuki press conference, stage-managed by the White House employing the nation's most elite reporters as high-profile extras, did reveal what viewers needed to know about the mind-set of the MSM on the eve of war."

However, his presentation of the weakness of the media was not written until May 4, 2006, over 2 years after this press conference mentioned above. It seems odd, that it would take Boehlert over 2 years to realize that the media had not done their job in challenging the war in Iraq. While one could argue that perhaps he had been a critic of the war all along, his previous articles in Salon suggest otherwise. One of the first articles by Boehlert after the beginning of combat operations in Iraq was an interview with John Voll, a professor of Islamic History at Georgetown. The question posed by Boehlert, as well as the answer given by Voll cast doubt that Boehlert was a real critic of the war when it began:

I'm interested in the "what-if" scenario: What if Saddam were taken out early in the battle? Could his regime survive?
One of the keys is the degree to which the Iraqi military high command is in fact unified, or if the only thing that keeps them together is a live Saddam. If so, then everything collapses. But if the high command is unified, they don't have to admit that Saddam Hussein is dead. Because there are all these Saddam Hussein doubles around. They can drag out one or other of these doubles.

In other words there was not a fear that Saddam wasn't that dangerous, or didn't lack WMD's but rather that his regime was so powerful that it would continue even after his death. There was no refutation whatsoever of Voll's point by Boehlert. While later in the article Voll points out that Saddam's would unlikely be able to survive the war, the possibility exists. There is no discussion of a regime that is weak and free of WMD's.

Another article by Boehlert features an interview with Ronald Bee, a senior analyst at the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation in San Diego and Boehler asked him:

The war was not unfolding like a lot of people expected, or how a lot of people were told it might. Have you been surprised the way things have gone?
Not really. Because in any war you have your theory and you have your practice.

This means that the fact that the war played our differently than people expected (i.e. how the media presented it) was not really any big deal. Boehlert does not refute this in any way. There is no comment from him that suggested that people expected the war to go differently because of the media, he is interviewing someone that believes that's just the way things go in war; sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong.

These articles are written after combat operations began in Iraq and nearly 3 weeks after the media debacle on March 6 that Boehlert discusses in his "Lapdogs"article. What causes Boehlert to realize 2 years later that media conference was the farce that he describes? I would attribute it to the change in perception of the War. Months went on, the regime fell, major combat operations ended and still no WMD's. It is not until July 16, that Boehlert begins to bring forward the idea that the "intelligence" used to support the war was mostly created by a personal spy ring of Rumsfeld. This is 2 months after major combat operations had ended, yet our soldiers were still dying. I think that this article became the turning point for Boehlert. He seemed to be a supporter of the war, and "cheered on the president" as well as the media up until this article was published. Then suddenly he became a critic of the media's coverage of the war, leading up to the publishing of his book "Lapdogs" (from which the Lapdog piece was excerpted). I think that the evidence presented here is clear that only in hindsight was Boehlert able to make the argument that he did. He was no critic of the media until almost 4 months after the press conference took place, and only later on did he realize their failure.