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.