Signing Off!

It's been an awesome semester. There's no doubt in my mind that I am better tuned to what I want to be doing after taking this class, and I'm really thankful for the opportunity to have my own little soapbox. I thank all of you for keeping up with it and making me feel welcome in our little community of pseudo-pundits. It's been a blast.

I have to thank Professor Berchman for always creating interesting modules that were very current and interesting. They made me really think about the way I viewed politics, and they made me more interested in following politics and politics coverage on a daily basis. That's a habit that is welcome in my life and I won't take it for granted.

As I head towards graduation now, this class has given me another tool for my arsenal: I can better think now about how every thing the media and politics do can change the way they are viewed. Having been a prime observer of these trends, I have an advantage that the generation before me did not. They have had to learn about the impact of social media on the fly, while I get to see their bumps and bruises from it, and learn from them. That's a powerful advantage.

I wish all of you the best of luck in your endeavors, though after reading how well thought out and interesting your blog posts have been, you don't particularly need it. I feel very confident that the talent level in this class will be able to make big moves going forward. I feel very good that the next generation of news makers and news reporters will be amazing.

Good night and good luck!

6 Tweets to Show How Politics Thrives on Twitter

Palin gets a nice two for one here. She uses her (admittedly sparingly used) Twitter to give props and create a dialogue with a newsmaker - something that can often happen between two politicians and even as a way for politicians to communicate with their base. The second tweet turns her kudos to Santorum into a restatement of her politics, another way politicians can use twitter to connect with voters - if the media doesn't ask you how you feel about something - take it to Twitter!

Here, Virginia Governor shows us a good example of how executives uses Twitter. Barack Obama does this a lot to. The goal is simple. Tell your twitter followers that you really think this piece of legislation currently flowing through Congress is a good piece of legislation. It raises awareness and let's twitter followers who might not have seen it in the news say, "Hey, that is a good piece of legislation, I hope my Senator supports it!", and then the calls and emails to a Senator's office start coming in. Using Twitter to get people involved and interested in government is a great way politicians use it.

Similar to the executive's call to action, Politicians can take to Twitter to make calls to action against things. Sometimes, this is unrelated to politics (We saw a lot of representatives condemning Joe Paterno in the wake of the Penn State scandal) but we can also see it when scandals erupt with persons of interest, such as the claim that Joe Arpaio is soft on sex crimes, which was in the recent news. Now, this can be a lot more risky going forward, because you never know how the things you say can be twisted, or viewed as just piling on - but it's a way to connect with people on Twitter.

Now, we've looked out some of the many ways politicians can use Twitter to connect with their voters, how can the news media use Twitter to better cover politics?

Here is one of the most simple ways Twitter can broaden reporting; we've seen it a lot since Twitter came to be: Tweet out a question you will be discussing later in the show. Followers tweet their responses and viola! Instant man on the street for the broadcast. Broadcasters get "What people are saying" to add context to a big story, and viewers get to feel involved in a news broadcast, which will make them want to view it. This is just an old news tactic evolved for the 21st century, and it still works like a charm.

Though less tactful (especially when done it all caps like you see here) than involving your viewers in your broadcast to get them to watch, you can capture their attention with a nice teaser tweet about what your next broadcast will be able. Maybe tell them you have some breaking news, or just letting them know who you're interviewing. It's a little more invasive into someone's Twitter feed, but it can still be very effective in getting them to watch.

Finally, this is my favorite use of Twitter. Want to be out in front of the pack or have more to a story you just told that you want viewers to see? Tweet it! Twitter has become a great place to make soundbite clips or create breaking or headline news that doesn't really merit a full 600 word story. You can easily place something like this on Twitter to get a dialogue going while you a churning out a longer story about the issue. You can also use Twitter as a way to get a powerful quote in that didn't make it to the story (and then include the link to the story) to keep people interested in what your stories are.

How Can (And Will) Media Shape the 2012 Election

If there is any doubt in your mind that the media can drastically influence an election, ask Hilary Clinton. We read in Game Change about how the media's skewering of her campaign took a huge emotion toll on her. I found this link, which was one of the many instances of the mainstream news jabbing her for crying on the campaign trail.

Am I saying that the media was solely responsible for Hilary losing to Obama in the primaries? Not at all. However, trying to ignore how much of a factor they were in the way her campaign shaped out cannot simply be ignored. The massive amount of crying coverage, in addition to other coverage that seemed endless in a bloody primary was an example of one of the many ways the media can dictate an election cycle.

Similar to the way we had to constantly see Hilary when the media was "taking her down" (her words), when Rick Perry makes a gaffe during a debate, we see it ad nauseum - It's not just on every news outlet through a seeming loop, it's a punchline on variety television for weeks later. Up until his dropping out of the race this Saturday, it seemed that you could not turn on a news station without getting some sort of update on Herman Cain's many woes, as well. Now that Gingrich is out in front of the GOP field, he seems to be the only thing CNN wants to talk about.

A presidential candidate is greeted by dozens of camera whenever they leave the protection of their homes or campaign buses. With this kind of intense coverage and a microphone on them 24/7, there are bound to be gaffes and bumps along the road that can cripple candidates. How does Rick Perry look in the polls after his month long smashing at the hands of the media? Candidates become punchlines in today's news coverage.

However, I'm sure some candidates would welcome overcoverage. Candidates like John Huntsman and especially Ron Paul feel they don't get enough coverage. Ron Paul was given less than two minutes during the most recent debate, and he spends nearly every moment he shows up on your television reminding you how the news media isn't willing to give him the time of day.


Paul was a serious contender during the Iowa straw poll, but has been consistently sliding further and further down the list in polls. He's gone from near the top to barely fetching 5 percent, and being considered the least "acceptable" Republican candidate by likely voters. Sharing the same percentage as Herman Cain.

How the news media chooses what it covers will continue to play a huge role in how this election plays out, and I wouldn't be surprised if another candidate gets slammed hard in the news media either before or during the early primary season (looking at you, Bachmann). It will continue to be interesting to see whether or not their headlines news covers the appropriate things (Such as Herman Cain's sex scandal) or if it will continue to look like unnecessary piling on, such as in the cases of Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

Cable News: How Much is Too Much?

The question we keep coming back to is how the 24-Hour News Cycle changes the dynamic of the news viewer. Do we get too much coverage? Do we get the right coverage? Do we get drastically different coverage based on which channel we watch? All are valid, interesting question every viewer has to ask themselves.

My big take away from four years of journalism school is that Cable News is just like any other news. Yes, we are oversaturated with news outlet. But, this can be a very good thing.

When news outlets have more competitors, it fosters two things: News consumers allowing their eyeballs dictate who succeeds and who fails, and news outlets are forced to do new and different things to attract said eyeballs.

In recent years, this has meant 24 hour news networks have skewed more toward the margins of the political spectrum and society than the middle, which could be a problem, sure. However, when the mainstream news media forces itself out to the margins, it leaves a gaping hole in the middle of every demographic that wants news.

The way those holes are being filled now are through countless niche sites that create a news buffet of sorts where the consumer is allowed to pick a sampling of news that best fit their interests. This creates a news environment where everyone who wants a specific sort of coverage to seek out the networks that best meet their needs.

This is called a "pull" news environment (as opposed to a "push" environment). Instead of the major networks only deciding what gets covered, there are so many producers of news that the viewer can get exactly what they want.

Does this mean the quality of each individual news service will degrade? This is possible, but it's up to each consumer to demand the best of their news service and abandon ship. Because of how many news producers there are, a news industry could not survive a situation where they lose readers for being dishonest. It's in their best interest to tell the truth.

So, while it is a little alarming that so often, mainstream news sites like Fox and MSNBC can be playing both sides of the fence - because that can obviously destroy the quality of their news coverage - it doesn't have to be. We can be our own editors and get mad enough to give the power to other news organizations to tell the story. And, if there's any one benefit from the digital revolution of news, it's that.

Analyzing the Political Blogosphere

Three of the biggest powerhouses in the political blogging community are DailyKOS, ThinkProgress and The Drudge Report. All three of these blogs not only have large readerships and influence in the community, but the also have something that a lot of blogs can't claim - access to the news makers in politics. This makes them the sort of standard bearers of blogging. Anyone who still believes that blogs aren't powerful news sources should just look at the waves these three make.

First, let's look at DailyKOS. The site has a simple look and offers the even more simple slogan: "News. Community. Action". Upon loading the site I am greeted by a front page with this image, titled Newt Blingrich:

Though this image takes a pot shot at Ginrich for his lavish spending a Tiffany's, the rest of the article goes into great depth about why Gingrich has curried such favor in the Republican primary in recent weeks. It's a fascinating read, and seems very balanced despite the author's seeming dislike of Republican politics. That's one of the things I like a lot about KOS: So often blogs are seen as cesspools as far as writing and story quality go, but they buck that trend with long pieces chock full of great writing.

Like I said before, I feel like they are a little slanted to the left, but I also feel like it's a lot like what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have made the point - they would like to call things right down the line, but in recent years the right has been been far more outrageous, so their left-wing bias is really just a bad news bias and a focus on which side of the coin is going to get the bigger laughs. Then again, maybe that statement in and of itself reveals my left bias.

Since we did a "left" blog, let's move to a historically "right" blog - The Drudge Report. One of the first real political blogs, Drudge seems to reveal not only in their right-wing affiliation, but also in their web 0.5 lifestyle. Their site is still one of the most unsightly things you can find on the web. I'm sure they could easily afford a better layout, but they insist on a layout that looks like a cross between craigslist and the first website I made in 6th grade during a beginner's HTML class. Ugh.

As for what I like about them, there isn't much. The only thing I can really compliment them on is knowing and catering to their reader base. I'm sure the average reader of their site is on the upper end of 40 or 50-years-old, and it shows in their coverage. A ton of national news (their main page headline is about Russia and almost all of their stories appeal to a conservative news audience. They raise an interesting question when it comes to blogs - if you acknowledge your bias.

As for our last, ThinkProgress, everything from their loaded name, their attachment to the "liberal think-tank" Center for American Progress, and their focus on their hard focus on social justice issues that usually are playing ground for the Democrats, this smells like a liberal blog.

Then, upon looking at their coverage, it fits the mold. Stories about how Fox News may or may not be crazy, Mitt Romney being a flip-flopper and attacks of lobbyist funded initiatives for oil companies litter the front page. Like their two contemporaries: they know their audience, and they cater and sometimes downright pander to it.

All of this is fine. Because we exist in an era where a new news site seems to pop up every time we blink, it's perfectly okay if a lot of them are largely partisan muck. People are going to go to the sites that best speak to them, and sometimes the best way to do that is to use the partisan language they want to hear.

And, when these sort of sites get out of line and tell lies, there are hundreds of other blogs that will keep them in check to forward their own agenda. Is agenda based fact-checking and competition the most effective way to get the real truth in news? Not particularly, but it makes for a much more honest, robust environment than the contrary, that's for sure.

10 Things I Want To Know About The 2012 Election

1. Why not Romney? - With Newt Gingrich now surging to the top of the polls, there have been four different candidates perched up on top of the GOP polls with Romney being second fiddle to all of them. Look, either he's that unlikable as a candidate and you should all just jump ship from him, or you should just accept the inevitability that he is the only candidate with a shot at Obama.

2. Who is John Huntsman? - Though I've seen him on numerous talks shows and appearances, I don't know what thing about who Huntsman is politically or as a candidate, and that's an issue. Seth Meyers joked with him that he will never hear "Mr. Huntsman, this question is for you." at a debate, how long is that going to be true?

3. Why isn't social media a factor, yet? - Sure, Obama's "I'm in" campaign was fascinating, but with Huntsman being showing up all over late night television and Ron Paul being the candidate of choice for the average internet goer based on my observations, why aren't these numbers being reflected in the polls? Is there something we are missing?

4. When will the herd thin? - Sure, having all these candidates is cute, but are we really planning on taking candidates like Huntsman or Santorum all the way to Iowa or further. The more we give them credence as candidates, the less time we can devote to the candidates who are legitimate contenders.

5. What will supercommittee fallout do? - We've heard what sort of repercussions that supercomittee, which we know is now planning on announcing they cannot come to agreement, will have for the country, but how hard with the fallout hit Obama? And, what GOP will twist into a big bump in the polls?

6. Who stumbles next? - With the biggest headline getters being the Perry's and Cain's who are making gaffes, who is next to say something they're going to have to damage control afterwards? Will Ron Paul, in a desperate attempt to get headlines, start screaming "GOLD" mid-sentence in a debate?

7. Where's Sarah Palin? - I'm tired of all of these amateur GOP contenders making themselves look like fools for the camera. I want to bring back a pro!

8. What do off-year elections say about the current GOP offerings? - We saw, even locally here in Arizona, that the most recent elections were a proverbial "mea culpa" by Independents for allowing Tea Party policies into government. Does this mean curtains for Cain, Bachmann and Paul?

9. When are we going to fix polling in this country? - It seems like you can get just about anyone to conduct a survey these days, why are we actually doing that instead of just getting one group we all can trust to do these early polls?

10. When is the media going to learn? - Between reporting every poll down the chute to make the election look chaotic, to overcovering the election before any primary as even happened, when are we ever going to learn that this doesn't really change any aspect of the lives of the average American? Why are we covering things just so they can be talked about over the water cooler?

The State of Journalism - Then and Now

To answer the question behind this weeks post, you have to assume that someone's paranoia can become so intense that it drives them to kill or have someone killed. I may be naive or old fashioned, but I don't think I can ever really accept that.

Nixon may have been just in his paranoia, but when you talk about Richard Nixon you have to have some historical perspective of who he was. Lots of people call Bush and Obama awful presidents, but Nixon is categorically considered one of the worst by many, and downright evil by some. He committed heinous acts in his time as president, and tried more often than not to be above the law and supersede the constitution to get what he wanted.

In light of that, it's hard for me to turn a blind eye to his paranoia about journalism, and makes me believe most of the people who were trying to tear him down with the use of their own freedom of speech were probably on to something.

When I see the figures increasing as viewership decreases in cable news, I worry. Being able to put more money in the tank doing what we're doing is nice, but if no one is watching it, we have a gigantic problem. It also worries me that money is being made while viewership is dropping - it makes me a viewer worry where that money is coming from, and me as a journalist see that it can foster the calls of being in someone's pocket that broadcast has to constantly fight.

If cable news has really peaked, as the State of The News Media article states, then it is time for a change to be made. Get away from the ratings grabbing, advertiser-ego stroking ideals that have dictated that last twenty years and bring the audience to the table through social media, figure out exactly what they want (though that seems to change with the seasons) and provide it.

As for the state of digital media, I think our reading is right in suggesting that mobile capacity is vital to the success of media in the digital age. I'd even take it a step further and say that it is the linchpin of that success.

Not only does mobile media show a grand opportunity to reach readers in new way, being able to work in the mobile media world is a great way of showing the news consumer that journalism can still be innovative and keep up with an ever changing world. If we continue to handle ourselves as a powerful mover in the mobile information age, consumers will be much more willing to stay with us to see how we handle the next big technological boom.

I don't think tabloid media corrupts our message as much as some would like to assume that it does, but that doesn't mean we can afford to depreciate our coverage by any means. The idea that the average viewer can filter out noise does not mean we have an easy pass to make a lot of loud noise that they can easily filter out. News media has to be on top of their game so that they are seen as valuable to the consumer, or else we're going even further down.