Journalism and American Democracy

As our semester comes to a close, so does our time as iPad owners. I will admit, I am sad to see them go.

This iPad is the first and only Apple product I’ve ever owned, and I will say I was impressed. And, I understood the theory behind why our class received them for free this semester. However, I am not quite sure I took full advantage of owning one for a brief time.

I’m not saying that these aren’t amazing tools, because they are. They made my life and things I did incredibly efficient, and using them in other classes in order to go paperless was huge. However, that’s just about all I used mine for, aside from a couple of apps, which I could have just as easily downloaded to my smartphone (which is even more convenient due to its size) or accessed on my laptop (which is, for me, more user-friendly due to the ease of typing). Plus, nobody wants to be “that person” who carries an iPad everywhere and uses it for everything. It’s a silly stigma, but I will admit that I sometimes hesitated to use it even just to access readings in other classes because I didn’t want my classmates to judge me as the girl with the iPad who flaunted it everyday.

I do understand that the underlying reasoning for having iPads this semester was to use it to explore different publics and to identify now means of communication and journalism, and I think it was successful to this end. Like I said before, I’m kind of disappointed in myself for not taking the time to fiddle around with mine a little more and see what other neat things I could take advantage of for the semester, but, who knows — maybe someday I’ll have a tablet that’s mine forever (but not an iPad. As long as I’m my father’s daughter, Apple products are off-limits. Samsung Galaxy Note anyone?).

Prior to reading Newkirk and Stephens & Mindich, I wasn’t even aware that there were minority newspapers (ignorant, I know). After reading, I definitely understand the importance of minority press, historically, and hence why there are still minority publications today.

Newkirk got me thinking, though with this quote: “While the nation’s racial landscape has radically changed between then and now, and the mainstream press — including television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet — is more diverse than ever, many believe the need for a racial minority press “to plead our own cause,” persists.  (82)

She also wrote, “While a need for a viable alternative press is apparent, the diversity, however slight, of the mainstream media has contributed to the decline of the traditional black press. As mainstream newspapers and television began covering the civil rights movement, black readers became less reliant on the black press for news and information.” (Newkirk 82)

My question is, if minority reporting is being integrated into the mainstream media, and if we as a democracy are striving to achieve an America that is not racist, why would there be a problem with mainstream media being more incorporating when it comes to minority reporting? Shouldn’t this be what we want, if we are seeking a public that is not white-normative? I would think that diversity within mainstream media is a good thing. Yes, it is still extremely important for minorities to be represented in these publications, but I would think that having entire publications devoted to minorities would further the separation of races, instead of bringing them together. Maybe I am showing my ignorance again, but it just seems sort of logical.

Secondly, how can media that is explicitly published for minorities be written without bias or framing? I found the website for the Los Angeles Sentinal, and although it has been two weeks since the Presidential Election, the headline reads, “Young, Gifted, Black and Brilliant! BARACK OBAMA RE-ELECTED.” I understand that the audience the newspaper is being written for was generally supportive of President Obama’s re-election, but come on, the headline has an exclamation point in it. If that’s not bias, I don’t know what is.

I understand what the point of explicit minority news was during times when minorities were more oppressed by the American Public. For example, Newkirk wrote, “While the independent spirit of the minority press is taken for granted today, it is difficult to fathom the kind of limitations on free speech that were, at the birth of the nation, imposed on African Americans and Native Americans and  those who supported them.” (84) And that’s not to say that minorities aren’t oppressed now; I do realize that racism still exists and that there is still much inequality in our nation. However, I just don’t see how a movement towards minority press within the context of mainstream media could be a bad thing. Representation in such news outlets would seem to be a good thing for these smaller publics.

Stephens and Mindich said in their essay, “The inherent blind spots and prejudices of journalism, along with the often unrecognized blind spots and prejudices of its practitioners, are themselves, in many instances, the “message,” the factor that changes our view of the political world. We have to battle, the point is, against the bewitchment of our politics by means of journalism.” (377) I can see the importance of what is being reported in the Sentinel. There are stories that pertain exclusively to African-American audiences, and they are important things that both African-American, as well as white (if we are to be a truly progressive nation) audiences should be aware of; however, it would be more progressive if these stories were printed in a section of the Los Angeles Times rather than in a newspaper that will mostly be read by African-American readers. I understand that there are limitation on media such as ad space, revenue, and other logistical aspects such as time and human capital, however if it were possible for minority papers to integrate into mainstream media. I am not saying they should transition their stories to be mainstream — rather, they should maintain their race-specific voice and be printed alongside other stories for a general public.

If anyone thinks I’m really wrong or just missing something, please point it out. I felt kind of bad writing this post, but these are questions I have and I’m just curious why our readings didn’t necessarily praise the integration of minority press with the mainstream media.

Amazingly, when I logged on to NJ.com — the website for one of New Jersey’s largest papers, the Star Ledger — the headlines were not about the election results. In fact, without scrolling down a bit and finding the link to election coverage, one would hardly know that an election took place yesterday. The news of the moment is all about the disaster and debris left in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and the impending nor’easter that is wreaking even more havoc.

Once the reader scrolls down a bit, there is more news about Sandy as it pertains to the election, including the fact that there were record-low voters in the state of New Jersey yesterday due to the lingering effects of the storm.

Then, there is an interesting tidbit on the link that takes the readers to pages of the election coverage. It reads, “Is it too soon to start the Christie-for-President Chatter?” This is interesting for a number of reasons. Governor Chris Christie is a Republican, and yet New Jersey is a state that has historically voted Democrat, including this year. Chris Christie has also made some controversially blatant and honest remarks in the past, which have garnered mixed feelings about the man in charge. (Personally, I think his what-you-see-is-what-you-get attitude is great. He spoke about education in America at the Law School last year on a Football Friday and my dad and I went to see him. I thought he was great. He’d have my vote for President). So, it’s interesting that in a historically Democratic state, New Jerseyans would already be calling for their Governor to run in 2016.

On the election coverage page itself, there is commentary on how social media (read: Twitter) showed that New Jersey residents had mixed feelings about the election results, as well as the fact that Tweets calling for Christie began as early as last night.

Just to add some personal commentary based on what I know about my home town as well as the rest of the state, I will say that I am not surprised that there are mixed feelings about the results from New Jersey residents. I come from a generally affluent town that is very socially conservative. I know of many surrounding towns and areas all across New Jersey — not just in my central area, but in the north, the south, and on the shore. However, there are also some very blue-collar and inner-city areas that likely would have pulled for Obama (for example, for every Princeton and Short Hills, there is a Camden and Newark). All sides of the spectrum are covered by New Jersey, and those larger cities such as Newark, Camden, Trenton, and New Brunswick probably made a lot of strides for Obama.

In general, there clearly was significant coverage in a state that voted for our President, but a lot of it was overshadowed by recent events, and how newly elected local officials would help assist with the aftermath.

Before I get to my analysis, I thought that this was an interesting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

This Wikipedia entry shows which daily newspapers endorsed Obama or Romney this year. The thing that I found to be the most interesting is that many of the papers that endorsed Romney are underdog papers. I’m not really sure why this would be or what the significance of this trend is, but I thought it was worth noting.

The first endorsement I read was from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/2786321-74/mitt-romney-president-america-policy-government-obama-public-scandal-think#axzz29tLmOFVd).  They endorsed Mitt Romney, claiming that President Obama’s administration has been rife with scandal. While they spend a lot of their endorsement bashing Obama, all they really manage to say about Romney is that he is a “good and decent man and proven politician.” It’s a short editorial, so when they do commend Romney, they do so in a rather broad and unspecific way. Throughout this election, all I personally have been looking for is specifics. When sources, whether they be the candidates themselves or media outlets, fail to give specific information, it is frustrating. Even though this is an editorial, the Tribune-Review should be able to go into more detail than they actually do.

The Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-26/news/chi-obama-endorsement-chicago-tribune-20121026_1_president-obama-barack-obama-tax-cuts/2), however, writes a lengthy and thorough endorsement for President Obama’s re-election. They focus on several issues the nation will face, and spend the entire first part of the column going into detail about the things Obama has done over his tenure in office that they find favorable, as well as the things they hope he can continue to do. It isn’t even until nearly the second page of the editorial that they start to talk about what they find unfavorable about Romney.

Perhaps the differences between the styles and content in each of the endorsements are telling signs as to why the Tribune is such a prominent publication, while the Tribune-Review is an underdog paper.

I could be sitting in front of the TV right now watching the third and final presidential debate before the election takes place in a little over two weeks.

But where would it get me?

I sat through the entirety of the first two debates and paid attention to most of both. I was sort of disgusted by the lack of information I felt I had attained by the time each of them ended.

The most recent debate, that took place last Tuesday, had both candidates rubbing me the wrong way from the beginning. A 20-year-old college student asked the candidates how each of them could assure him that he would be able to find a job upon his graduation. They both answered the question without actually giving an answer. Mitt Romney sad several times that he had a plan to put in place to ensure that the young student would be able to find employment. My family and I were literally shouting at the TV, “Okay, so what is this plan?!!” (For the record, my parents are both undecided voters, so it’s not like they had a predetermined anti-Romney stance on the debate).

Plain and simple, it’s really annoying to try to decipher information when all two people are really doing is 1) repeating what the other person said; 2) bringing up things the other person said in the past; 3) arguing with the other person; and 4) arguing with the moderator. Somehow, I managed to make up my mind about who I am voting for based off of the last debate, but it was mostly to do with the way the candidates conducted themselves, as opposed to the actual issues our country faces.

We talk all the time in this class about what type of information the public needs, what type they get, and what type they deserve. If you ask me, these debates don’t present the public with the type of information they need, and they definitely deserve better.

I’ve got thoughts on Kathleen Parker’s speech from last Thursday, which I will post here after my exam this evening.

Until then, though, our discussion in class yesterday made me think of a column I wrote for my other JED class last week. The column topic was up to us, and I was getting annoyed by all of the pictures going up on Facebook and Twitter last week from Instagram of our beautiful campus, ruined by some kind of cheesy filter. That inspiration helped me apply my frustration to other social media, until I suddenly found myself in a full-on rant (which, by the way, can be read here: http://www.notjustanothersportsblogg.blogspot.com/2012/10/techonologically-advanced.html).

There were things Parker said last Thursday that I agreed with, and things that I disagreed with. I guess my biggest takeaway from the speech is that we need to be selective in how we interact with this media, because if used effectively, it can be very powerful. But, if used for trivial and vain reasons, it just creates confusion as to what news really is, and furthermore, what news really is necessary.

All semester long thus far, we’ve been trying to answer the question, ‘What kind of journalism does the public need?’

When our class was given iPads, one of the first things I asked internally was, ‘Why do I need this? I’ve got a laptop. I’ve got a smartphone. What can this do that these can’t?’

After having them for almost two weeks, I’m still looking for the answer. I’m sure it’s out there. I am sure that this tool can enhance our class’ ability of meeting its goal of broadening communication across various communities. I am still on the search for how to maximize this ability, though.

My Twitter community has broadened, that’s for sure. I’m tweeting more often due to the amazing app that is Flipboard. I love Flipboard because it is visually conducive to selecting information that suits the user. For example, when I’m on Twitter on my laptop or android, I can’t always tell if something might interest me based on the 140 character limit the posts allow for. On Flipboard, I get pictures, previews, and variety on a visually aesthetic layout. I’ve found that I read more news on my iPad than I do on any website on my laptop or any link posted through my smartphone. I’ve also re-tweeted more through Flipboard. I think it’s because of this I’ve had some random followers add me lately, such as “Communication News”.

Aside from being more engaged with the news, having the iPad has been a great convenience for other classes. In particular, for classes that have multiple PDF readings due on the same day, instead of printing out longer documents, I can just bring them up on the iPad. I’m still trying to figure out how to be able to take notes on the documents I’m viewing (i.e, having the ability to highlight or insert notes to areas right on the document), but I’m sure once I do that, my communities will be broadened even more by being able to better engage in my classes and the material.

The iPad has definitely altered my relationship with news and politics, because I am paying more attention. Is it necessary? Probably not, but then I also would not be as informed about the world around me, and as my dad says, “knowledge is power.” It’s definitely a powerful tool and I look forward to continuing to discover all that it has to offer over the course of the semester.

I was really frustrated last night while watching the debates.

I was doing layout in the Observer office while it was on, so while I saw the whole thing, it was more background noise than my primary focus. However, I did try to pay attention as much as possible, and the pieces that I picked up were kind of frustrating. I’m not going to pretend to have an in-depth understanding of all that was debated last night, but what stood out to me the most was that the candidates were often indirect and extremely vague in their responses. Rather than giving any concrete information about what their own plans were, they sought every opportunity to knock their opponent’s plans.

Debates matter only to the extent that the audience (in this case, the whole country) has not yet decided their stance. I doubt that many people who had already had preconceived notions about who they were voting for changed their minds last night. The purpose of the debates are to persuade those who are undecided. So long as there are undecided voters who actually care about voting, debates matter. They might not provide the most information at the end of the night, but they certainly have an impact on those who have not yet made up their minds.

Debates also create watchdog journalism, and journalism in general. It was incredible how many stories were breaking AS the debate was going on. Twitter exploded with politics. The commentary surrounding the debates are equally as important because this commentary will also serve to persuade undecided voters. This raises the question of how biased the commentary can and should be. It goes back to wondering what kind of journalism the public needs. It is clear that the public needs journalism in order to digest the debates, but it is important for those reporting to separate fact from skewing the reporting to be in the best interest of the reporters.

So, overall, do debates matter? Yes. But not to the extent that they may be made out to matter.

I really thought that Parker’s column, ‘Introducing President MSNBC’ was so relevant to everything we’ve been discussing in class. She crafted her piece in such a cheeky but informative way, and really conveyed how the media may perhaps be too involved in modern day politics.
This coincides with what Schudson discusses — how much media does the public need, and when does the media blur the line between reporting news and shaping a political scene? Parker would probably argue that media, in particular MSNBC, has their own political agenda in mind a bit too much when they go about reporting. It’s very telling when reporting figures are more sought-out by the public than the candidates themselves.
It is also good that Parker defends opinion columnists, because she is right; it is their job to have an opinion. But it is not EVERYONE’s job to have an opinion; some people should just report. Her quote, “What is not counted on by casual consumers is the merging of a television personality’s politics and the viewer’s understanding of the world.” This one sentence accurately sums up what Schudson talks about when he questions what kind of journalism the public needs, and what can go wrong when things are reported in an inaccurate or an improper way.

This is a post regarding out “Documenting Publics” Assignment:

Rather than document my publics over the weekend, I decided to compile my information so that I would be able to reflect on it all at once.

I realize that it’s not necessarily ‘democracy’, but I decided to take an approach of viewing publics right on our own campus. A football weekend brings out many, many different publics, and a variety of different types of reporting. With thousands of people on campus, it’s hard for there to not be so many publics.

This weekend was especially different because of the movement to support Manti Te’o through wearing leis. I thought it was incredible how people could come together to do something like that. It was a simple gesture, yes, but that news had to spread somehow. Twitter and Facebook were (and, I can’t believe I’m about to write this) essential in disseminating this information.

Video served in a big way for pre-game hype – on Friday and Saturday there were youtube links abound, showing highlights of the Michigan State game as well as previews for the Michigan game. One of my favorites was this one, which served to highlight the MSU game as well as promote the group who sings the background music, who performed at Friday’s pep rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcqRC5gHKpY&feature=g-all-u

Just walking around the parking lot on Saturday, it was hard not to notice the co-mingling of various communities. Alumni, students, fans who never went here, friends, Michigan fans, professors, faculty, all came together to support one team. It always amazes me how Notre Dame gets like that on football weekends; there are just so many people. Rather than some type of media, the game itself served as interaction for various publics.

On Sunday, an article was published that focused not so much on Notre Dame’s victory, but rather on Manti Te’o, who has recently suffered some personal losses. The article was informative, compelling, and did more than simply scratch the surface of the importance of the game from an athletic standpoint. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/09/22/notre-dame-michigan-week-4/index.html?sct=cf_t13_a0

On Monday, it was “back to normal” as it always is, but that doesn’t mean that Notre Dame stops being a part of other various publics. We are a university. We are catholic. We are nationally and internationally renowned. We will always be watched by the eyes of various publics who also belong to groups that fit these descriptions. On Monday, the university announced that they have invited both President Obama and Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to speak on campus during their campaigns: http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20120925/NEWS0502/209250340/Notre-Dame-invites-Obama-Romeny-speak

Of course, I couldn’t avoid using FlipBoard (it’s just so cool!) so here were my favorites from over the weekend (unrelated to Notre Dame):

TIME’s 50 best websites of 2012: http://techland.time.com/2012/09/18/50-best-websites-2012/#introduction-2

Consumer reporting on a serious issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/health/new-system-for-patients-to-report-medical-mistakes.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0moc.semityn.www

The Obama campaign is not satisfied with being ahead in the polls: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-campaign-redoubling-efforts-amid-fears-of-voter-complacency/2012/09/22/4945776e-0264-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.html

The online wedding page for the New York Times differs vastly from that of the Providence Journal.

The Providence Journal (http://www.providencejournal.com/arts-entertainment/weddings/content/) focuses mainly on announcing weddings, and nothing more. They publish announcements for what seem to be upper-middle-class white families (based on the last names and venues of the weddings), which makes sense because this is a large demographic of the New England region.

In contrast, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/fashion/weddings/index.html) has announcements, along with stories about weddings, articles about planning weddings, and links to politically charged articles about gay weddings.

The difference between the two papers and their wedding announcement tells us a lot about the publics they respectively serve. Clearly, the New York Times is a high-budget paper that can afford to feature specific weddings, as well as other stories of love and wedding preparation. Even the little-known names have fascinating stories. These range from, “The bride is an actress, the groom is a comedy writer” to, “They met on the subway, but not before taking many rides together.” The idea of the wedding section of the Times is not only to provide information about weddings that will occur, but also to provide entertaining stories to their readers. Thus, the Times reaches a public of many people who may not even know or have heard of the weddings they announce, but will care anyway because at the end of the day it’s still a good human interest story.

The Journal only seems to announce weddings. There is no section that includes human interest-type pieces on which dresses are trendy or what to do to make planning a wedding easier. It is likely that local readers have heard of the couples, or at least one member of each couple, who are being announced. The journal reaches a much closer public than the Times, and along with a smaller budget, is the type of paper that serves more local areas rather than a national scale.