Journalism and American Democracy

I can’t say it better than Rick Astley so I won’t. But lucky me because I had an iPad at the start of class and I’ve still got one now.

I am not an Apple girl. I have a dinosaur of a Dell, a Verizon EnV flip phone, and I still use an iPod mini. Yeah, no not the Nano, the discontinued mini.

But I have an iPad 2, which I proudly bought for myself for my birthday two years ago, because I was excited to finally join the age of college kid technology. Since then, I’ve learned that it is more than just a fun object to interact with (read: check my email), it is a device that connects me to the various social media sites which journalists now rely on.

Though I came into the class with a strong mastery of some of the most common social networking sites, I learned about so many more ways I can create because I was encouraged to explore new apps like Spotify, Flipboard, and Evernote. It is crucial to remain connected, and especially for those like myself without a smartphone, the iPad keeps me ready to share even when I’m on the go. I use it to cover football games (it was with me at USC) but I also use it for class.

The iPad represents the shift in journalism toward a multimedia product. Learning with one has better prepared me to be a journalist.

Never Gonna Give You Up

Earlier this month Princeton professor Christy Wampole published the article “How to Live Without Irony” in the New York Times, sparking heated and lengthy responses to what she calls a generation “investing in sham social capital without ever paying back one sincere dime.” She postulates that Millenials have developed no culture of its own, instead pulling from what others have already created as a mechanism of self-defense. Her argument lies in the assumption that this generation – unlike others before – fears being torn down for its ingenuity.

Journalist Jonathan D. Fitzgerald’s article “Sincerity, Not Irony, Is Our Age’s Ethos” ran in The Atlantic three days later, defeating her classification of modern life as dispassionate with examples of rising artists producing sincere, vulnerable music and writing. He does not believe, as Wampole does, that the 90s were the peak of sincerity, instead remembering his own coming of age decade as apathetic and melancholy. And where she uses generalities to explain her criticism, Fitzgerald makes a point of throwing names and statistics around to support his. One that stuck out to me most was the Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll survey. “Among Millenials,” Fitzgerald writes, “six out of 10 prioritized being close to God and having a good family life above anything else. For those in Generation X [of which Fitzgerald and Wampole are a part], family was still important, but the second priority was not spirituality – it was making a lot of money.”

I hesitate to jump right in and agree with what is largely a defense of my generation, because I, like Wampole, observe with a mixture of distaste and humor the “hipster movement.” Granted, I was a child in the 90s, but I don’t remember hipsters existing back then. It certainly is a new movement and there are members of my generation who choose to take part.

That said, the hipster movement is just a new way to accomplish what adolescents have always sought – protection from the harsh critics sitting across the lunch table. Adolescents are insecure, but their approach to life with “apathy” and refusal to stand out from the crowd is a self-defense mechanism not limited to Millenials, as Wampole intimates. Fitzgerald is right, they were around in the 90s. But they’re around today, distinguished by the label “hipsters,” and these cultural robots were around in the 70s and 80s too. I mean really, are you going to try to tell me that everyone aged 50 was a true fan of disco? I guess you’ve seen That 70s Show too.

I can’t tell Wampole or Fitzgerald what our generation will be remembered for. Perhaps Fitzgerald gets close when he cites icons such as Lady Gaga or Frank Ocean. Or maybe those two will only be remembered as sub-cultures, filed away with hipsters and disco. But every generation of adolescents has got a little sincerity and a little irony in it, and that’s because we’re human and sometimes our fears get in the way of being true to ourselves. If anything, what we once wrote in diaries is now broadcast over blogs, Twitter, and all-too-personal Facebook statuses. We’re more sincere but also more ironic, because we have more places to express. So here’s my nod to remembering our generation as the first to grow up on social media. The distance social media provides also gives us the courage we need to be sincere. And with the rise of cyber-bullying, forgive us a little if we need an ironic tweet or two, or tens of “likes” for “creatively” hating on Bieber, to lift us up when we’re feeling unsure.

Democracy as established in the Constitution of the United States of America should have protected the minority from majority rule. But during the antislavery movement, states went as far as to make laws abridging the freedom of speech. Illinois lawmakers, for instance, decided that the First Amendment did not apply to abolitionists. Editors for papers serving the African American community were attacked and their printing presses were destroyed. Nevertheless, people like Frederick Douglass persisted in their pursuit of equality.

Today, media outlets still seek to serve underrepresented populations in the United States, but not necessarily in the fight for equal treatment. In Washington D.C., the Washington Hispanic (c.1994) publishes with the motto “The voice of the Hispanic community in Washington, Maryland and Virginia” and the coverage I sought out seemed to be exactly that: coverage about the community not picked up by the major media conglomerates. The Washington Hispanic prints 55,000 copies per week. According to its Wikipedia page, the publication is headquartered in Adams Morgan, making it the only Spanish language outlet in the actual district.

On its homepage on 11/13/12, I found the following five stories – all related to the election – rotating in the top page element:

“The Latino electorate turned out in impressive numbers to the polls -15,000,000-and 70% gave their vote to Obama.”

“Maryland already has a Dream Act. They also legalized gay marriage and the expansion of casinos.”

“America is changing, and the results of the last presidential elections prove it.”

“In Ecuador, Rafael Correa announces his candidacy for reelection, and he rides a bicycle.”

“In January there will be automatic cuts in the national budget and tax increases if Obama and Congress fail to reach an agreement.”

What I like about the Washington Hispanic is its commitment to civic engagement, focusing on the aspects of the election that are a.) most important to its audience but b.) will inevitably increase voter turnout next time. One of the headlines – the third – seems to lack a tie to a news element, but when I clicked to read the story it explained how Latinos can become a very influential population in the election process, giving their growing numbers and growing voter turnout (a story which fits into the current national narrative that the GOP must do something about their Latino disconnect).

If the mass media aren’t covering these kinds of issues in a way that caters to all minority communities, then they need to start by diversifying in their newsrooms as Pamela Newkirk suggests in her essay about the minority press. One of the problems with newsrooms remaining largely white and male is that the homogenous makeup reinforces limited coverage, and as the electorate – and society – diversifies, journalism as a mirror must do so as well. It makes me wonder – will newspapers like the Washington Hispanic eventually fold because the mainstream press must broaden their coverage and steal readers? Or will the mainstream press buy out papers like the Washington Hispanic to gain diversity in the organization? Or will we eventually see a “Washington Post – Hispanic section?” Perhaps the most important question is, though, will the U.S. Latino population follow the coverage of their community to the mainstream papers? Because while it is the responsibility of the media to hold a mirror to society, they also need to sell papers, and if their readership continues to reflect a homogenous population rather than changing with the growth in minority populations, it seems unfair to ask them to change their coverage. But perhaps they need to change their coverage to get the new Latino readers. Or perhaps the homogenous population of subscribers needs to read about the Latino population, regardless of whether the coverage helps business or not. Unfortunately, the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question comes into play, and it might take a few guinea pig publications to test it before the media figures out how to best cover the diversifying community.

Alright, so my prediction that Nevada would go red was wrong. Barack Obama won 52.30% and Mitt Romney won 45.73%. County-by-county, Romney won 15/17 counties, losing Clark (Las Vegas) and Washoe (Reno). I was surprised that Obama was able to capture Reno, especially with the last-minute campaigning that Romney did in the area to get students at the University of Nevada Reno to change their votes this time around.

In post-election coverage, The Washington Post evaluated how the state split its tickets – electing some Republicans like Dean Heller over Democrat incumbent Shelley Berkley, while still sending the electoral votes to Obama. This election for Nevada was really going to come down to two factors – whether the poor economy would be enough for Romney to flip the state from 2008 (when it elected Obama) or if the rapidly growing Latino population would get out the vote and keep Obama in the lead.

From the Reno-Gazette Journal’s “Latino votes come with a demand: Reform immigration system” published 11/7/12 (click photo to link).

Because the Latino population, as reported by National Public Radio, has grown to comprise 10 percent of the electorate, the GOP has to figure out how to win back their votes. With rising Latino superstars in both parties – Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Julian Castro (Democrat) and Florida Senator Marco Rubio (Republican) – the door is open for the parties to realign on the issues in an effort to court the burgeoning population’s votes. Losing the minority vote in general hurt the GOP, and while they may struggle with African-Americans, many say that the religious links between Latinos and the GOP make the fit plausible, if they can work out their presently rigid position on immigration.

I checked in on the Reno Gazette-Journal, which changed its endorsement to Romney this year after feeling let down by Obama’s first term. Their coverage would indicate that Romney lost Nevada due to women and the Latino vote. Seems like Nevada’s narrative fits right in line with the national narrative, so all the stories – like today’s Early Start CNN coverage and The New York Times’ front page article – about the GOP needing to re-evaluate are right on target in this state.

I’m straying a bit from the assignment on this one to point out an interesting trend in my home state and in New Hampshire, two swing states up for grabs this election.

I know everyone thinks Nevada leans blue, because it voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but I see a different trend. I see a state that is consistently in the highest bracket for unemployment – try being 51st out of 50 states in September 2012 (they’re counting D.C.) – and a people that despises its neighboring Californians almost as much as they love their guns. It’s a state that regularly puts out Tea Party congressional candidate, like Sharron Angle who produced ads attacking the Latino immigrant population, and the national circuit seems to think Harry Reid is still relevant to Nevadans when the reality is he gets reelected so that Nevadans are relevant to the national circuit.

How Nevada voted by county in the most recent presidential elections.

So when Barack Obama gets elected in 2008 with an endorsement from Reno Gazette-Journal, it means that the two most populous areas of the state will overshadow the rest of the born and bred red. And when that paper endorses Mitt Romney in 2012, it’s not something to ignore. Just look at the map – and recall that in 1996 Nevada went blue for Clinton and in 2004 Nevada went red for Bush. What’s the difference here? The state goes blue when a populous northwestern part of the state joins Las Vegas in going blue. Without Reno, I think Obama’s going to have a tougher time capturing those precious six votes.

Let’s look at New Hampshire, a state that also went blue for Obama in 2008. McCain swept the presidential endorsements during the Republican primary – leaving Romney largely ignored. Again in the 2012 election, the New Hampshire Union Leader – the only statewide paper – backed Newt Gingrich over Romney. But this fall, they have announced their support for him, and this may be because they are considered to be conservative-leaning. The Concord Monitor and the Nashua Telegraph both threw in their hats for Obama in 2008, but neither have announced support this election.

So what does this mean in New Hampshire? Perhaps a reluctance for either candidate, as the papers saw their primary picks ousted by Romney and are tepid about endorsing Obama when they had a decidedly Republican presidential record.

If you’re interested in taking a look at other swing state paper endorsements, here’s a link to a brief summary from ABC News.

A strong showing in a debate can change the course of a presidential election.

But so can a poor one.

The oft-told story of how John F. Kennedy charmed the American public with his good looks and suave style does not go unaccompanied with recollections of Richard Nixon’s sweaty appearance. And after last night’s performance, Barack Obama will have to figure out how to escape his nickname “College Professor” and the adjectives describing his demeanor as “arrogant” and “distant.”

Some pundits are already dimissing the debate, arguing that Obama’s speaking style will hit home at the town hall debate in Kentucky next Thursday (Oct. 11). Others speculate that he can find success on his foreign policy record with a public that is not so receptive to upping military affairs as Mitt Romney’s rhetoric would suggest he’d do.

But for one whole week, negative coverage from what has been a largely sympathetic media will plague the Obama campaign. And this comes after weeks of battles on the mishandling of the Benghazi consulate attack.

Are the sweeping poll numbers in swing states enough to keep the Obama campaign afloat? Or will Romney close the gap over the next week, with the potential to see an upswing after the Vice Presidential debate? We all know what to expect from the unpredictable Joe Biden. But the eloquent, charming, home boy with a fake Ryan Gosling Twitter could put this election neck-in-neck with little time left before election day.

Looks and charm aren’t below us. We like a presidential team we can be proud of. Debate moments matter. And this one might just be the start of an entirely new race.

Just when you thought you were going to steal all of the spotlight for your unexpected performance at the first presidential debate…

I’mma let you finish. No, no, Mitt Romney, really, go ahead and finish.

You too Barack, you three extra minutes refuter.

…Jim Lehrer happens and leaves the world scratching their heads wondering “But they never answered your questions. Why did you not follow up?”

Apparently Lehrer and Obama pregamed the event with NyQuil because really, Mitt was the only one who showed up. And thank goodness too, because the party started about five months ago and he’s just now making an appearance.

Mitt Romney owned that debate and there’s just no two ways about it.

He armed himself with specifics and called out Obama when he wasn’t presenting any. Sure, Obama started out with a cute but terribly irrelevant anniversary wish to his wife, but Romney’s first answer listed what he planned to do to create jobs while managing to work in an anecdote about a struggling single mother. Game.

Romney knew what he wanted. He wanted Obama to apologize for the last four years. Obama didn’t have to say “I’m sorry” for that to come out, because he was on the defensive for the majority of the debate. Oh, and somehow Romney managed to call him out for not offering plan specifics – Lehrer’s job – and really, I liked his spunk and audacity for doing so. Ooh, did I just grant him likability and turn Obama’s word against him? Set.

It’s probably here that I should let everyone know that I am an undecided voter in a state where my vote counts. I’m also an absentee voter with my ballot in my room, so I could vote any time I please. There, loaded gun on the table. But in this debate it’s time to move on from the economy – no thanks to Lehrer’s inability to get his questions in – and onto the Affordable Care Act, more fondly known by both parties now as “Obamacare.” Here’s my paraphrased transcript:

Romney: The ACA costs more. You are forced to limit yourself to the treatments they tell you you can have. Businesses say it makes them less likely to hire employees. We should be crafting plans in a bipartisan fashion at the state level where they know what their individual state needs.

Obama: We protect you from insurance companies. This is the same plan Romney enacted in Massachusetts. Everyone can get covered, no restrictions.

Romney: I already said you need to do it at the state level. Also, you can’t work in a bipartisan fashion. I can and I did.

Obama: (Fill in random facts about the benefits of the ACA)

No one expected Mitt Romney to win this debate. Not really. But hey, he managed to turn an issue he was flip-flopping on just months ago and turn it against Obama. And he made me believe it. And I didn’t before.

Match.

The public’s demand for instantaneous news, commentary and sources has led journalism to take hold of social media and run. Journalists often acknowledge that they interact with one another on Twitter far more than they do with the public. More than interacting, though, they compete. The first to have the story and tweet it, wins.

It follows then that journalists need constant connection to the web. They need it to check facts, to log stories on their respective sites, and, of course, to disseminate their findings through social media. As a journalism student, understanding the process of journalism and having the ability to track it as it happens provides invaluable insight into how news is reported and why the story never seems to be complete. The iPad fosters this kind of learning through apps like Flipboard to keep on-the-go students always plugged in.

From the first “BREAKING” tweet to the publication’s headline and link, the facts inevitably change. Of particular relevance is this summer’s CNN & Fox News flop when the two outlets proclaimed that the United States Supreme Court overturned the Affordable Care Act under the logic that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. We now know that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion was that the individual mandate as a penalty was unconstitutional but as a tax was a reasonable exercise of the United States Congress’ powers under the commerce clause. But at the time, viewers watching the two sources had the wrong facts, all because of the desire to have the story first, a preference that results from the use of social media and smart technology.

This summer I was able to follow the Supreme Court ruling on my iPad while also watching CNN and it was enlightening to be able to watch the various media outlets flounder on their Twitter feeds and live broadcasts. I have had an iPad since March 2011 and I have found it an invaluable resource in my work as a journalist and as a student. As a journalist, I appreciate the connection it gives me when I am out and about (I do not have a smart phone). As a student, it enables me to stay connected as news breaks between class periods and to view the stories of multiple news sources at once, instead of flipping through stacks of newspapers or PIP on my TV (I don’t have PIP anyway).

While I don’t think that smart technology is crucial for the everyday public to remain informed, I think that there is a world people are closed off to when they don’t use it simply because so many have chosen to join that public. The iPad will help us to understand that public – even if we don’t plan to permanently be a part.

Alternate title: Why politicians beg journalists (read: offer large paychecks) to be their spokespeople.

On Thursday, Oct. 4 Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post will give the Red Smith Lecture to students involved in the Gallivan program for Journalism, Ethics and Democracy. In anticipation of her talk, our class read some of her more recent columns.

“Cyborg Mitt Speaks Out”

Parker interprets presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark while effectively framing his position as one based in truth about the way economics works in the United States. I mean really, were Romney’s comments something we didn’t expect him to say? No, not really. And is it unfair to rephrase (a portion of) his remark as “Heck, they need jobs an income before they can enjoy the problem of a high tax rate.”? Again, no. He’s not courting the vote of those who would fall into the 47 percent and they weren’t going to vote for him anyway. Hear, hear.

“Introducing President MSNBC”

I’m officially sending this column to anyone who wants to write one for Scholastic magazine, as it’s just a flat out good piece of journalism with an easy-to-map narrative structure. She teaches those of us purists who avert our eyes when MSNBC and Fox News comes on that in fact, at least one of these networks has a bi-partisan morning program. She also feeds our voyeuristic appetite with a colorful retelling of the DNC peppered with jokes at MSNBC’s expense. And then she goes on to explain why we so easily turn television journalists into celebrities, all while placing the blame on no one but the technology. With an attentive audience, she has set herself up nicely for her thesis: If news organizations would be more transparent and open about their biases, then people have the tools they need to hear the best case, rather than the set-in-stone fact of “balanced” programming. Hear, hear.

“The likability trap”

How anyone determines whether or not they “like” a candidate is beyond me, as no one outside of senior staffers ever get more than five minutes of the candidate’s time. And maybe I only speak for myself but I hardly think it fair that someone judge my “likability” factor off of five minutes. My suspicion is that I’m not alone. So why do we choose who we vote for based on whether we like them or not? Because politicians – like TV journalists – are celebrities, and as long as they’re not blander than vanilla tapioca, we’re willing to tune in. Parker says all that and more in her column about Romney’s unending battle to win the favor of the public. It’s a shame that she’s probably just preaching to the choir, which will be no different in Thurday’s lecture “Journalism in the Age of Twitteracy” – at least for our class (#NDJED).

But I’m happy to live tweet the event and more excited to meet Parker in person. Speaking of Twitter, follow @Sulliview. She’s the public editor for the New York Times and for those of you who thought “no one checks the press,” think again.

Huzzah! (Had to get that 3rd cheer in somewhere.)

I chose to compare the wedding announcements of two, well-known papers with large circulation, but in very different areas of the country. My hypothesis in class was that the target audience of a newspaper would be most evident through the wedding announcements it chooses to print.

First I looked at an announcement in The Dallas Morning News. In this paper there was a photo of the bride but not the groom. Monique Lhuillier designed the gown (as I found out from the story). The announcement began with a detailed description of the wedding ceremony, all of the events related to it, and everyone who did anything of note in the wedding. It listed the parents of the bride and groom, as well as a detailed and long wedding party. At the end it mentioned their degrees and jobs as well as where they plan to honeymoon.

Next I looked at an announcement in The New York Times. In this paper there was a photo of both the bride and groom but they were not dressed in their wedding attire; instead the photo appears to be from an engagement photo shoot. The story was about half the size of the one in the Morning News and began with a short, two sentence summary of the event. It then launched into a more detailed description of the bride, a television and film actress, and her parents, both retired from positions at Nabisco and I.B.M. Finally was the groom, who is a sketch comedy writer for a show on Comedy Central and his parents, both also of elite positions.

One notable difference between the two is that the announcement in the Times focused much more on the “who” and what those individuals have done whereas the Morning News focused on the “what” and the extravagance of the ceremony in its entirety. I think in this case my hypothesis is proven to be true, in that I know from a story I did about the Texas Club at ND that many Texans love planning events and throwing huge celebrations, whereas I think from what I have heard about New York, the people who live there are more interested in the who’s who of daily life. I would be interested to see if other papers throughout the country also reveal their target audience through the facts they choose to write about in the wedding announcements.