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.