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.

Herman Cain and The Money Behind Politics

I realized halfway through this blog post that the title could be misinterpreted, and I just wanted to make it clear that I intend to blog about two separate topics, Herman Cain and then the money behind politics, today.

Wow. What an ad that was. The dim lighting and the blatant shots of him forcing puffs from a cigarette make it seem like it's a deleted scene from a bad Tarantino rip-off. Add that to the conflicting attitudes of the commercial - with the dark dim lighting contradicting it's rallying the troops tone. And then that smile. Oh boy, that smile. I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fame hits the nail on the head with the splicing of that hilariously awful smile with new music.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/jon-stewart-herman-cain-sexual-harassment_n_1069217.html

As much as the ad is chock full of mistakes, I like it. It's typical Cain, who has been all in with bad ideas and fringe appeals throughout his candidacy. Cain embraces every aspect of his personality and policies as if they're any good as any other, and is a "take it or leave it" sort of candidate. So, while I think I might just like the ad because it's one step closer to blowing up his candidacy so I don't have to see him on my T.V., if people have already bought into the idea of Cain, they're going to eat this up with a spoon.

As far as political money, it was fascinating to read how easy it is for people to drastically influence the nature of politics. Reading about how a millionaire can just as easily funnel his money into a candidate without any accountability to it is downright baffling.

Finally, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't really a method to gauge how well political endorsements from publications help a candidate. While I think the average voter may think a publication can know more about a candidate in a given election, I think that they don't put a lot of clout in those endorsements. It seems like there's a lot of suspicion of newspapers, and a political endorsement probably does more to raise the idea that they are in the pocket of politics more than anything else.

Ad Season Ramping Up

Two of my favorite ads so far in the 2012 election cycle have been these:

In this ad, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul takes a much smarter approach than I have seen throughout most of the primary. Instead of trying to differentiate himself from Barack Obama, he shows how each of his relevant opponents have sided with Obama or with liberal politics and ideas. I think is a much smarter game plan - instead of slamming into the juggernaut that is the Obama politcal machine, Paul saves his early game for taking hits on the Mitt Romneys and Rick Perrys of the world. Now, while this is probably a logistical thing (Paul likely has much less in the war chest than his opponents, and therefore has to keep doing well in the primary to stay afloat), it's smart to save your big hits on Obama for when he is actually your main opponent and to make yourself look different from the sea of other (with apologies to Bachmann and Cain) white guys in suits that are running against you.

I also like this ad:

I'm a fan of this one because it's an incumbent behaving like an incumbent should. Not gloating about achievement, not complaining about what he would do better, and no mudslinging at any of his opponents. Now, I'm not exclusively against mudslinging per se - it's a very useful tactic. Though, Obama has the opportunity of being ahead of every possible contender and having a lot of chances for them to shoot themselves in the foot. This is clear with this ad, which is very calm and relaxed. It focuses on Obama has a candidate and a leader, not on tearing down any opponents.

I chose to analyze Gov. Rick Perry's calling of Herman Cain "brother" during a recent debate. These three articles had a couple big differences that I thought were critical.

http://theweek.com/article/index/220489/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-19/news/30318205_1_herman-cain-brother-debate

http://news.yahoo.com/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother-095000099.html

What I found most interesting is that one of the articles, the one from the New York Daily News, didn't refer at all to the fact that Rick Perry also called Gov. Mitt Romney "Sir". I felt like this was an important idea, and lent very much to the fact that Rick Perry was sarcastically urbanizing his speech towards Cain while making Romney seem stuffy. He was lampooning his candidates in a way to make them less appealing to the voters.

I also found it interesting that the New York Daily News was the only publication to not rely on its own conjecture - instead going to experts in the subject of race relations. This allows them to tell a fairly straight inverted pyramid style story while everyone else relied on the instant analysis type of story.

I think it's interesting that the Washington Post, a paper seen as "liberal" analyzed every possible angle and reason the Perry could have used the term. It seems like they would have instantly gone with "racism" if they were marking for Obama.

Ads Ads Ads

Of the three ads presented (I'm not sure what happened with the Obama Ad, but it's pretty clearly not an Obama Ad, as stated in the video's description), I think Rick Perry's was the least effective. While Perry was clearly swinging for the fences in his ad, I think he hits a little too negative. Though we've been all to familiar through our reading of Game Change how bloody primaries can get, I don't think this one will carry hostility that is so present and divisive in Perry's ad. It's a little uncomfortable to watch it.

I actually liked Michelle Bachman's ad, but it was a little simple. It didn't wow me the way I feel like a presidential ad should. It felt more like she was running for reelection in the House or for a smaller office than president. It fairly clearly showcased her ideas and what some of her big griefs are with Obama, but it didn't do enough to make it seem like she was ready for the biggest office in the country.

I feel like Mitt Romney's ad was the most effective. Though it's more lengthy than you'd see on a T.V. spot (which goes into my idea that candidates should be focusing on the internet for ads, which I'll get into later in the post), it has a great focus and paints a tough picture while not being the gloom and doom that Perry's ad exudes. It also shows great poise and understanding of the issues at hand.

It seems almost a forgone conclusion that social media will play just as big, if not a bigger role in the 2012 election as it did in 2008. If this is the case, Twitter is incredibly savvy to begin selling out some advertising space, and how candidates use social media to connect with voters is going to be pivotal. I feel like younger voters and senior voters are already solid in their respective camps, and that the candidate that can best connect with voters aged 30-45, since these are the voters with the largest stock in the economy's success.

While T.V. advertising is still probably going to get the bulk of ad spending, it seems to be much more of a push strategy instead of a pull. When an ad is thrust at me as I am watching an episode of How I Met Your Mother, I am much less likely to be drawn to its message than if it gets shot at me from a Twitter account I follow and I have the option of clicking forward or ignoring it.

It will be exceptionally effective if a candidate can get their message to viral, somewhat like the way Obama did in 2008. We are much more likely to be interested in something if our friends are sharing it on a social media site. Obama already has a headstart with this, having his Obama for America canvassing team spread the word through Facebook through it's "I'm in" campaign. Though Obama may be hard to take down in this environment that seems so liberal friendly, the eventual GOP nominee would be making a gigantic mistake if they discount the low risk (fiscally, at least), high reward area of social media.

A lot to talk about this week

Occupy Wall Street. I relish the opportunity to talk about something so hyper relevant, especially with the protests making their way to Phoenix over the weekend, and ending in the arrests of several Phoenix residents, including some of my classmates at ASU. It's a fascinatingly polarizing topic that makes a lot of strong opinions spurn up.

On to the actual topic: It feels odd to me that we're putting Current and MSNBC on the same scale in this discussion. I feel like Current openly displays it's bias. I mean, it hired Olbermann as it's lead news director, and did it after MSNBC cast him off after nearly a year of him openly displaying his liberal bias. Current is doing nothing to hide it's bias, so it makes perfect sense that Olbermann and other people on the network would be marking for the Occupy protests.

What makes me more angry is that MSNBC is behaving in the a similar way. Not only are they letting Olbermann dictate how they are reporting Occupy Wallstreet, they are ruining all their good graces they gained by cutting ties with Keith by continuing to pursue stories in a way that can be mistaken for a liberal agenda. Are Republicans excused for pushing the narrative that Occupy Wallstreet isn't a story so much as it's a bunch of misinformed rich people complaining and that MSNBC and their ilk are just marking for liberals by covering it? No, but MSNBC has been taking jabs from Republicans long enough to know how they're going to attack and how they're going to try to force the narrative. If nothing else, there's some smack of liberal pandering just by pursuing something that they know is essentially throwing a raw T-bone to the Republican attack dogs.

In the end, I think it's impossible to avoid promoting an agenda in the mainstream news. You report a certain way which leads to gaining a certain viewer set the expects you to report a certain way. In that sense, I absolutely believe that MSNBC is marking towards liberals in their coverage of Occupy Wall Street.

This brings me to my next point: Competition among cable news outlet is harmful for the quality of journalism these organizations produce. Because so much of their coverage has to be custom fitted to the audience that flocks to them, major news outlets like MSNBC and Fox can fall victim to bias sneaking into their coverage because it fills a need that the people watching their programs want. Instead of focusing on telling the story with the truth as the main idea, they can end up reporting biased ideas for the sake of ratings. This can strangle all of the journalistic quality out of their reporting.

Shortly after Steve Jobs passed away, I watched not only this speech but another that seemed appropriate. Though I was never much for his products under the Apple brand, Jobs' work in the creating Pixar films has always stuck with me and helped me focus and appreciate the beauty that is in the world. There are still moments in movies like Up! and Toy Story that rip my heart out and make me weep like a little baby, and that's such a refreshing thing. I look at creations that have the longstanding affects of a Pixar film or the technology Apple created and it drives me to create and try to find something inside of myself to create and to fight through the times where I just look at my writing and think it's crummy or derivative or silly. I reach for the things that keep me inspired and in awe at one a person or a few people can create, and it makes something as simple as writer's block that could put me into a cage and make it seem less lofty.

Fox News and a Media Analysis

I was quite amused watching the clip of Papa Bear O'Reilly speak with fire and brimstone about the "liberal media's" love affair with getting Barack Obama re-elected. While I've never been too big of a fan of Mr. No Spin, I occasionally flick on his show to see what kind of narrative the right wing is pushing. This is why I find his constant attempted take downs of left organizations quite amusing.

Since this is typical Fox News fair, it's not surprise that this HuffPo story states their viewers are among the most consistently uninformed viewers. What Bill O'Reilly is doing here isn't news, and it isn't even informed commentary. There are no sources, no reasons why he believes that the media is treating Obama with kid's gloves. The only piece of evidence - the Pew research study his source states - is actually against Fox News, but they present as if it is praising Fox News.

It baffles me that O'Reilly can stand up on his little anger pedestal and make these claims and bold faced lies on and on, and then play victim when he and his Fox News associates are called on it. It's quite disappointing.

For my Media Analysis, I ended up watching MSNBC's Alex Witt and Thom Hartmann, a radio/TV personality who's show airs on Free Speech TV. I figured this would be a good way to see how two programs that are considered "liberal" would cover similar events. The only thing they both talked about - because Witt ended up doing a feature heavy show where as Hartmann fired off on a lot of heavy, hard news for more rabid followers of politics - was Herman Cain harshly criticizing Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Hartmann was a lot more incendiary than Witt, taking Cain to task for a "lack of awareness" and calling it ironic, that Cain, a former CEO of a company, would find fault with people protesting, essentially, CEOs of companies. He also said he wasn't surprised about Cain's harsh words, pointing back to other times Cain has said harsh things on the spot.

Witt's analysis was much less editorial, focusing on what he actually said - strictly reporting it - and then also referencing Cain's attack on Muslims that he apologized for.

When Hartmann brought it up, he did not mention that Cain apologized for it.

2 Billion

When you consider the public spaces today as opposed to a century ago, it's a very different atmosphere. Because of population expansion and devotion to technology, we are becoming further and further apart from each other physically - the world just doesn't demand the intimate closeness it used to. This means that the town halls and the forums and large, community gatherings where people would meet, greet and exchange ideas are a thing of the past.

Now, we have to find a way to communicate and exchange ideas that isn't bogged down by physical restrictions. This has presented itself, as two billion people worldwide can attest to, in the internet. We've seen - especially in recent weeks with the London riots being mobilized over Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry messenger - that digital communication is the new forum for ideas.

The internet, since is presents that unique ability to connect over shared ideas with people you would normally not meet in your day-to-day life, has become a way of establishing new communities while helping existing communities connect without having to arrange meeting times or match schedules. The anonymity it grants also allows people to exchange their true ideas a lot easier than they would in a physical forum. This is where the problem can sometimes lie.

Because people can share any kind of ideas with a presumably limitless audience, this means that they can pretty rapidly spread an idea or concept that could be dangerous. This can be both a threat to government, who has to decide what ideas to act on and what ideas to ignore, and the people have to be careful to decide what ideas are worth fighting for, and then protect them from a particularly overbearing government.

It creates a dynamic juggling act that increases tension between the government and the governed, with the former finding the fine line of safety and censorship and the latter trying to filter out the myriad of opinions and ideas that are thrust upon them to find something that's really worth fighting for.

Having always lived with the 1st Amendment hearing of situations where ideas are being withheld and the internet being censored really ruffles my feathers. Knowing that words are powerful is no reason to fear them, and attempting to censor them just because to give your people the power of he idea makes the staunch information freedom advocate in me tremble with anger.

It's an interesting strategy, but when you're oppressing the populace, it serves more to rattle the cages you've put them in than it does to shut down their lines of communications. Whether it's utilizing the internet in the Occupy Wall Street or utilizing Blackberry messenger to organize the riots in London, the people are always going to find ways to mobilize (pardon the pun).

The biggest problem is that when they find a government has been trying to keep them down by cutting off those efforts, it's just going to stoke the core of the fire even more.

My reaction to "Weinergate"

I followed the scandal involving representative Anthony Weiner at every step. Weiner has always been a personal favorite of mine among politicians for his aggressive pursuit of progressive legislation and his general openness with the media and his constituents. His humor combined with his great intelligence made him one of the stronger faces of the Democratic party. Because of his high ranking in the party, I feel like his situation was different than many others. I'll break it down at each step.

Did the media contribute more than they should have:

I feel like the media had very little to report when it came to politics during the month this was happening, so I do feel like there was a little bit of over coverage. Granted, he is a member of the country's house, but the only people this story really ever matters to is his constituents. Instead of being treated like that, this was a national story every day for almost two weeks. The media had not behaved like that since the D.C. Madam scandal, and there was a lot more to that, since it actually involved illegal activity. Part of me also believes that the initial lie - that his account was hacked - made the media a little angry at someone who was formally so open with them, and that made them attack the blood in the water a little more harshly than they otherwise would have.

What were the Republicans motivation:

The Republicans behavior during this scandal was about what you would expect out of the self-proclaimed party of family values. Though Weiner had never branded himself a family values candidate or anything of the sort, it makes sense that they are going to use whatever ammunition they can against a powerful face in the opposing party. Though calling for his resignation was a little hypocritical in hindsight (as there have been several similar scandals in their party where they were quick to let the constituents of the guilty legislature make the decision), it's obvious that the Republicans had to force this issue so they could try to gain a seat

(which they did as of last week) and shame a strong Democrat.

Should he have resigned:

Ultimately, I think it was much more up to his constituents whether or not they were okay with Weiner's behavior enough to allow him to continue to be their representative. I don't think we heard enough of their reaction to the scandal over the fervor from the opposing party and the analysis from the 24 hour news cycle. Since the issue did not have any legal ramifications or anything of that sort, I don't think it was necessary to force him into a resignation. Instead I think it would have been more important to let the constituents decide if Weiner was someone they wanted to keep around.

What does this mean for social media:

I've said it before in blog posts: If you have any doubt about the power of social media to change lives, just ask Anthony Weiner. But, it's not just a forum where you can be tempted into showing off more than you probably should. It's a medium where you are given an amount of freedom to express yourself that is near unprecedented. If you're identity has become an idea in the way that representatives or anyone with a high social profile can, Twitter not only presents an opportunity to connect with people in unique, dynamic ways, it also presents unique, dynamic ways to make an absolutely fool of yourself.

Social Media and the 2012 election

Twitter is a fantastic tool for social media, but we have seen so many examples in recent years where it has changed lives. Though it can usually be more dangerous for the likes of athletes and celebrities who don’t have an army of wranglers making sure they only say harmless things (or have interns doing it for them), Democrats like Barack Obama and Anthony Weiner show the extremes for what it can be a for a politician, both a meeting ground to connect to a potential voter and a trap that can magnify your discretions for the entire world to see. “Is social media a fad” mentions that 96 percent of generation X is on social media. This was the age range that is considered to have won the election for Barack Obama. If he cannot make that magic happen again, and a GOP candidate that can get a strong following on social media – which is a tool the Tea Party has already proven to be willing to use, they can forge an upset on Obama. Twitter will also be a battleground for propositions, I believe. Things can spread on twitter like wildfire – as seen in the race for the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death – and dueling sides can easily post their information and arguments in little retweetable sound bites for the masses to recirculate. Finally, I think individuals incumbents will have to make social media a priority in their campaigns, because the people challenging them for their seats can easily sway voters away from career politicians through effective use of social media.

However, we must bear in mind that while having a strong social media following is wonderful for helping to endear Gen X to your cause, it won’t solely win you an election. The majority of votes come from people on the other side of fifty, and can still largely be stalwart about not joining social media. This is why one of the most shocking facts in the information presented was that the largest demographic that is increasing its social media presence is women ages 45-55. If this continue, we will begin to see every election won and lost on social media, and social media become the new stump. I just don’t know if we’re there yet.

Gay Marriage goes national/You can't believe everything

Though it's an issue that will stay at the state level for the foreseeable future - since it would be a mess to see the U.S. Congress try to tackle it - gay marriage has become a hot button national issue this year after the Maryland state legislature attempted to make it legal in their state, and the New York state legislature succeeded in doing so.

This article, and many others like it, tell the tale of why it's more than just state legislators that are chiming into the discussion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-democrats-learned-to-love-same-sex-marriage/2011/09/07/gIQAKezfFK_story.html?hpid=z5

Local issues can break into the national scale when the scope of the issue can represent a change in the fundamental mindset of the country - who we are and who we think we are as a nation, and whether we're going to be progressive or stick or our conservative roots. This issue has that going for it, in addition to giving politicians a chance to make a huge statement to their constituents about where they stand.

The sides supporting the issue tend to be on the left side of the spectrum, supporting the idea that the concept of marriage should expand to include the most people. Opponents are on the side of valuing a "sanctity of marriage". But, if the left is the one promoting and supporting this issue, why would a notorious blue state like Maryland not allow a legalization effort slip through their state senate with ease?

More important than either side of this issue is the middle. The center of the country has to think very hard about where it lies, whether it is more interested in progression through civil rights or defending an institution that is usually associated through religion.

Arizona, the prototypical Red state these days, are behaving exactly the way you would expect them to - by making strong statements about protecting the sanctity of marriage. In a state that will largely legislate based on religious ethics and conservative ideology, and based on voting records, the voters have no problem with that, or else they wouldn't continue to fill the local legislature and government with conservative politicians.

"You can't believe everything you read on the newspapers and see on TV."

In reference to this class, this means to me that you can't always trust the news media, I don't consider it much of an insult to my craft. Though there are those nasty people will always disrespect the work the media does, there are a lot of people who realize the pressure that is put on the media by a rapidly changing news environment. Though they would like to tell every story as completely and thoroughly as possible, time and space constraints, as well as subscription and ratings numbers put a really tough strain on the average news organization. This means that you can't always expect for a news organization to stay with a story and analyze every detail for you. If you don't tailor your news consumption to the news services who present the story that best suits your interests, and then not be afraid to do your homework to see what things aren't being said.

All Politics Is Local Politics

To me, this means that the most important eyes in the life of a politician - and therefore a political writer - are those of his or her electorate.

This means that everything a politician does, they must not first thing about what Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann will say about them, though rest assured these voices are important (as they can manipulate the thought process of the voter) or what any media outlet says about them. At the end of the day, it matters most what the voter thinks of them. If they cannot endear themselves to the voter, they cannot get reelected, and therefore cannot do what they want in their political office.

Now, it's wrong to think that a negative story on CNN or local news won't change the voters mind. This is where the politician has to be mindful of their portrayal in media. The media can go far to destroy a politician's reputation, even if he or she is well liked by their voters. Anthony Weiner's recent scandal comes to mind here. The pressures of the media microscope can do wonders to destroy a person's good standing in the community, and thereby ruin them.

Why I am here

First and foremost, I am here largely because I am 90 percent certain my job will involve politics in a very large scale. I am mulling around the idea of running for local office back home (Maryland) once I get my law degree. I have also covered local politics with the Arizona Guardian. I enjoyed it greatly, so if I do decide to stay on the journalism path, it will likely involve covering politics. I feel like it is necessary to see as many ideas and opinions of how media and politics should play with one another, simply because I know I might be on either side of the spectrum, so it will be nice to hear insight on dos and don'ts.

The media influences politics because it dictates the dialogue. The media, in a perfect system, behaves as the constant updates for the people, making sure their elected official is actually being their voice above all else. The 24 hour news cycle makes politicians accountable at all times, especially at the local level. Scrutiny can be intense, and it makes politicians have to always be on their best behavior.

However, this is in an ideal society. Often, the media can do more to help the politician pull the proverbial wool of the electorate's eyes. By ignoring potential storylines, leads or tough questions, they can allow the politician to hide behind a nice little wall, and do whatever they like while still having the voter's trust. A lack of diligent pursuit of the truth will lead to a less informed voter, which will lead to potentially electing someone who does not have their best interests at heart.

I am in this class to learn how to behave on both sides of the reporter/politician relationship.

About Me

Hello classmates and anyone else who might have stumbled onto this site. My name's Michael. I'm 23, and in my last semester at ASU as a print journalism major. I'm originally from Annapolis, Maryland. I spent two years at a community college before coming to Arizona to study at a good school in a completely different place than where I grew up.

My interests include performing and listening to music - I play bass and will talk to you about any and every band you can think of) - sports (Let's go Caps!), writing and learning to cook.

As far as media influence, I think that every time a prominent news personality steps in front of a camera or puts keys to text, they have to know the power of their words to influence society's decision making process. Because of this, journalists have to be responsible and think about the possible public response before airing a statement or clicking "publish". However, people - especially those already in the public eye like politicians - have to think not only about whether or not something they do will be headline news tomorrow, but also what the headline might say.