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.