Journalism and American Democracy

And so I recede back into the technological darkness from whence I came, disconnected from the world and alone. Or so that’s how I feel….
Yes today we reluctantly return our iPads. The too-close-to-magic machines have reached the end of their journey with us as we complete our class. As I reminisce on the endless hours I spent studying, reading, exploring and generally messing around on the iPad, I realize how quickly it integrated itself into my day-to-day life. I used the thing at every possible moment, whether it be in class for a reading or to study news stories or to play numerous mind-numbing games while on a long car trip.
And as much as I kid, I am sincere when I say that this iPad really changed how I read the news. The Flipboard app simulated an infinitely interactive newspaper and helped me maintain a strong connection to stories I would have never discovered otherwise. Our Twitter page was only a button away. Within seconds I was able to scan the big stories of the day, just by looking at our Twitter feed. And the user-friendliness (sp?) made all other computers seem like an old western telegraph machine. Jumping from web browser to news story to blog post to twitter was as easy as can be.
I am even more sad when I realize how much more as left to be discovered. I only recently found out how to take screenshots and every day I find another news app that I want to check out. I have a weird guttural feeling that despite all the wonderful experiences I had with the iPad that I still have left so many possibilities out on the table. I guess the ipad can do that – it makes you feel as if the information at your hands is infinite and that no matter how much time you spend on the darn thing you’re always going to find new efficient tricks or apps that open up another world to connect to. I understand now why Apple is sometimes considered a cult – and I’m chugging the kool-aid.
I have even considered getting an iPad for myself for Christmas….or at least an iPhone for Christ’s sake. I need something to satisfy my fix. And that’s the way things are going now, news has become a 24/7 ordeal and the public is constantly connected. Whether it be an iPad, an iPhone or some sort of other lesser smartphone (I kid, again), the source for news has become the palm of our hand, it is at our fingertips. As soon as I discovered the vastness of news media on the iPad the problem wasn’t staying connected or keeping on top of it all, the problem was disconnecting. Surprisingly, the endless information was not overwhelming – it was fluid, easy to find and constantly available. Having the iPad was a peek into what journalism has become and how it connects a multitude of publics – something we have never seen on such a large scale. With the advent of internet and now devices like the smartphone or tablet the news has become personalized. As Michael Schudson claims, traditional lines within journalism have become blurred. The distinction between writer and reader has disappeared, as has the difference between a blog post or a newspaper article or a tweet. Everything has meshed together and this seems to be for the betterment of the informed citizen. As a class, we became part of the future and participated in a new system of news-reading. Having to remove myself from that world feels like being sent back to the 5th grade. GoodbiPad

The media likes to portray itself as a mirror, an entity that reflects the state of society and represents the public it reports to. But sometimes, as Pamela Newkirk mentions in “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Cause”, the media has failed and continues to fail in properly representing a multitude of minority groups that have suffered grave injustices in the past. She concludes that this has led to the “…ever present yearning by distinct groups to assert their unfiltered voices in the marketplace of ideas”. The result is an explosion of newspapers focused on reporting news that is relevant to and represents certain minorities. These papers stretch back to the 1800s with the African American Freedom’s Journal and the Native American Cherokee Phoenix. Both provided platforms for these oppressed groups to express frustrations, ideas, and social injustices relevant to them – most of which had been left uncovered by the mainstream press of the time.
Today’s press is much more diverse but it still carries inherent biases that prevent it from reporting on issues important to certain minorities. The Native Times is in the same vein as the original Native newspaper – Cherokee Phoenix – hoping to cover news that is relevant to America’s original peoples. It is the largest independent Native American news source and is nationally distributed. The top federal news stories have nothing to do with what I had been seeing for the past week on mainstream news. No mention of the Petreus Scandal, no articles on the looming fiscal cliff, and no analysis of foreign affairs. Many of the articles had a connection to the federal political landscape but focused on legislation or issues that pertained to Native American life. The most significant and simple example was the posting of a White House press release that declared November 23rd Native American Heritage Day. This recently came out of the Obama camp and all other news sites, even local ones, failed to even mention it.
But the federal news took a back seat to reservation news. Reservations, after all, are technically a sovereign nation with their own governance and culture. The federal news is taken from AP clippings or White House press releases but articles on native land acquisition or reservation law are produced by the paper’s own writers. From my experience on several reservations, it is safe to conclude that news relevant to reservation law and governance is much more important than anything taking place nationally. Whether this stems from a remaining distrust of the government or a more localized culture is unclear but the fact remains that a native newspaper would be wise in focusing more attention towards news on the res.

While the election coverage of an Obama / Romney square-off stirred up madness on Twitter and numerous media websites and television channels, Arizona’s premier media outlets remained calm. The state’s top two news outlets – AZCentral.com, home to the Arizona Republic Newspaper and channel 12 news, and The Arizona Daily Star – seemed more preoccupied with voter issues, such as the long lines in the east coast and issues experienced within Arizona, than with the election results within the state.
Arizona is a red state through and through. With the increasing Latino population it has been argued that the it could become a battle ground state in the future. But right now, it remains unequivocally red. The proof lies in the media’s coverage of the election. As the polls closed in Arizona, the Daily Star immediately reported that “All 11 Electoral Votes Go to Romney”. I assume there was about 0% reporting at that time. Now, it is true that Romney actually garnered a larger percentage of Arizona’s vote than McCain did in ’08. And since there were no contested congressional races, the world of federal politics was largely subdued in Arizona. Both sites were very focused on voter troubles however, serving as a government mouthpiece to help inform voters at home on how to report any problems or issues experienced at the polls. This was interesting to see. Whether this is basic protocol or a new development in wake of the problems out east, I don’t know.
There was, however, an important local race that garnered some attention from both papers; Infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio versus challenger Paul Penzone. Arpaio ended up winning an unprecedented 6th term as Maricopa County Sheriff but it was his closest race yet. Sheriff Arpaio and his office have been the subject of hundreds of lawsuits from civilians and the U.S. Justice Department, the big one citing widespread discrimination of Latino residents in Maricopa County. His harsh stance against illegal immigration has made him quite the controversial figure in Arizona, as well as national, politics. Most Arizona news outlets jumped on this breaking news, largely ignoring the national election. Many televised Penzone’s concession speech as well as Arapio’s acceptance speech. This was the big news of the day for Arizona, who will face another 4 years under Joe Arpaio. How long that lasts with the new lawsuits remains to be seen.

There is a great website by the American Presidency Project that compares the endless newspaper endorsements that have been flying out in the last week. It shows the 34 endorsements for Obama compared to the 28 for Romney. It shows the higher total number of circulation under the Obama newspaper endorsements than the Romney ones. And it also shows the unique trend of newspapers (current number sitting at 10) that endorsed Obama in 2008 but now endorse Governor Romney. It is understandable that many of these newspapers have flip flopped after seeing a slower than promised comeback of the economy. I happened to be more intrigued by the 1 lone newspaper that flip flopped the other way – The San Antonio Express News – and the newspaper that is probably the most predictable in presidential endorsements (even more so now for their native son), The Chicago Tribune.
Most Texas metropolitan newspapers – like The Houston Chronicle and The Star Telegram (Fort Worth) – surprisingly endorsed Obama in 2008 but this year chose to endorse Romney and those other Texas newspapers that endorsed McCain in 2008 stayed with the party ticket. Except for the San Antonio Express News. The Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times (which no longer endorses) had both decided to back Senator Obama in 2008 and to be honest, there was really no other choice for the two major newspapers of the candidate’s political hometown. The San Antonio Express News headlined their endorsement with the statement that “Obama has earned a second term” – a surprising divergence from the general theme of this campaign season, that Obama may not have done great but he’s still better than that other guy. The Tribune is more harsh on the president. The article references the list of reasons it gave in 2008 for why they endorsed Obama and one by one graded the president’s performance over the past years and whether he proved them right. The Tribune cited his decisiveness, which shined through in his expert handling of foreign affairs. The Express-News is equally as praising towards his foreign policy. The Tribune originally believed in his bipartisan appeal though, which both papers cited as a true failure of the president’s last four years. But surprisingly the papers differ in their general message. The Express News is optimistic, recognizing the handicap Obama deserves due to the mess he inherited and is extremely impressed by his immigration reform – an important issue to the state of Texas. The Tribune goes in depth about how Romney is a viable candidate for president due to and how the president never came through on the “change” he promised. It can be seen as a sort of lesson of “tough love” for Chicago’s native son. Both papers however reach their conclusion for Obama within the same vein as the rest of America – that he is the lesser of two evils. Romney raises skepticism with his tax plan and his big business past. Interestingly enough, the San Antonio Express-News never references its previous endorsement, as if it never happened. It is intriguing to think about the reason why they flip flopped but the reader will never know for sure. With the Tribune, their justification for past endorsements and reasons for the current endorsement are laid out in a clear, transparent way. This is much more convincing, despite both papers endorsing the same candidate.

Debates matter. I would argue that it is not the material debated so much as how the candidates appear while debating. Since the advent of television and debates during Kennedy/Nixon, these events have become moments of likeability and image. Those who watch the debates are focused on how comfortable or how commanding each candidate looks up on stage. What they are saying is important but it is the same talking points and facts that the public hears during the entire campaign. This is a moment of live national exposure for each candidate. Reactions on twitter for last night’s debate were overwhelmingly aimed towards how Romney or Obama were being perceived. I believe that the debates are essentially a performance, acing your lines and handling yourself in a way that can benefit your image as a knowledgable, confident leader. This is something the public reacts strongly to. The debates may not reveal anything important or novel within each candidate’s policy, ideology, or plans but it still remains an important force on the road to the White House. Candidates can really define themselves during these moments and at other times, they can see their unraveling. Should these debates matter for more intellectual reasons? Probably but in this visual media that focuses on the horse race and campaign strategy, image reigns. And the debates set a perfect stage for the public to see how each candidate conducts himself in a national event. It is not about what they are saying. It’s about how they are saying it.

It was clear in the first 5 minutes and it was clear in closing statements. Mitt Romney came to play ball. He came ready to impress, looking to ace a job interview. He was crisp, he was clear. Obama, on the other hand, seemed mentally out of shape, years removed from his last debate. 15 minutes in and the President’s body language was already suggesting “Oh crap, I never actually studied for this”. Romney leaned into the debate while President Obama sat back. Twitter noticed too. Tweet polling by major news outlets such as Washington Post, ABC News and New York Times revealed an overwhelming consensus. Romney was running away with it.
To be fair, the live fact-checking showed a different debate, where Romney was losing…by a landslide. But therein lies the problem. Mr. Romney was on stage throwing out numbers, avoiding his plan details, and wrongly accusing the President but all Obama could muster was his same talking points, lauding his own plans. It was weak, it was passive and it was uninspired.
The debate itself has been receiving mixed reviews. NBC anchor Robert Costa enjoyed the minimal presence of moderator of Jim Lehrer. Others, like myself, found it wonky. Romney looked like a bully, talking over Lehrer the entire time. And Obama began taking chips at Lehrer for his lack of moderation skills (“I had 5 seconds before you interrupted me”). Maybe it was Lehrer’s fault, maybe it was Romney being overconfident, either way it hurt the structure of the debate, allowing Romney much more air time and a repetitive cadence of stances. The one bright spot? The awkward mention by Romney on his plan to cut The PBS budget and his silly way to patch it up: “I love Big Bird”. Lies. Well we all know who Big Bird is voting for.
In the end I think Political Wire’s own Taegan Goddard summed the debate up correctly – “Obama missed a big chance tonight. While the fact-checkes may ultimately side with the President in the end, Romney did a better job”

To put it simply, Kathleen Parker rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that opinion columns must be taken with a grain of salt but the triviality of Parker’s subjects overwhelmed me. I couldn’t find any importance attached to the appeal to men in Michelle Obama’s speech and there was nothing new or novel being expressed in her assessment of the “likability trap” of politics. The likability factor has been around for awhile and she writes about it as if she is condemning some major social problem that has only recently developed. And don’t get me started on the Notre Dame piece.
There were points at which I agreed with her but even then I found myself asking “Who cares?” Her voice is clear and her opinions are strong but they carry no weight. It was like hearing the ramblings of my abrasive friend at 2 a.m. Op-eds are a curious aspect of the news. There is a presence of voice and a blatant bias but the authors somehow maintain credibility as well as an audience. I do enjoy reading them every once in awhile. But Kathleen Parker didn’t connect with me.
As Sharon Grigsby points out in a comment about Parker, “She’s an independent thinker and her viewpoint is often so fresh and original, you can’t help but be moved even when you disagree”. I think Grigsby is right when she points out the unpredictability of Kathleen Parker. My opinion is that it hurts her credibility. There is no pattern, no support to her thoughts. They seem random, disjointed even. The points she makes can be clearly argued but she moves forward with a defiant march.
However, even with my disagreements on everything she writes I have to respect her. The provocative language and style does move me, even if it is in the wrong direction. She is humorous and entertaining and I get lost in the piece, trying to figure my way through her “interesting” rhetoric. And maybe that is the role of opinion pieces. To get the readers’ blood flowing during an otherwise uneventful and plain reading of the news. In a world of objectivity and professionalism Kathleen Parker seems to be a break from that monotony. In my mind it is comparable to the child who is kept inside all day by his overprotective, anxiety-ridden, germaphobic parents and his sudden cry of freedom when he escapes to the backyard to play in the mud. Maybe it’s dirty, maybe he gets hurt but it is important for him to experience that exposure.

While trying to brainstorm two newspapers that can be used to compare wedding announcements, I found myself looking back to my experience in Idaho and how different that area was from my hometown, Chicago. This summer I
Interned with the Nez Perce Reservation near Lewiston, Idaho and I discovered in my old backpack a weathered copy of the reservation newspaper, known as the Tac Tito’oqan. During my time there I had written several articles relating to the region’s environmental and social concerns and read it whenever I could. The Tac Tito’oqan differed greatly from my “hometown” newspaper, the Chicago Tribune. This becomes most evident when reading the wedding announcements. In the Tac Tito’oqan, wedding announcements submitted by the readers are long, detailed and personal. Essentially, they are mini biographies about the two people coming together to be married. A small newspaper with limited readership has the room for such detailed announcements because of lack of potential advertisers and writers. The newspaper itself is very personal, less focused on professionalism. The reservation is large for most reservations but the population is still around 5,000. Everyone knows everybody and the few publics that make up the reservation all overlap. When looking at the wedding announcements I wasn’t surprised to see that every couple was not only Native American but they were all Nez Perce Indian. Non-natives do live on the land but their relationship with the tribe is very stressed and therefore they would never read a native newspaper. Compare all of this to the Chicago Tribune. The first noticeable difference is the length of the announcements. All are very short, factual and to the point. It is also important to point out that I read the wedding announcements in the Tribune on their own web page. Not only does the Tac Tito’oqan lack a separate page for wedding announcements, they lack an entire website. The paper is also distributed monthly. The weddings you see are after an entire month has passed by – the immediacy of information is not as vital. As far as those represented in the announcement, the Tribune displays a diverse constituency. The first three announcements are about a Columbian-american couple, a teacher and a venture capitalist, and a national guardsman marrying his high school sweetheart. The Chicago Tribune is a national, metropolitan newspaper and its readership is very large. It represents thousands of different publics. The Tac Tito’oqan represents small, secluded publics that all interrelate within a culturally separate nation.