Journalism and American Democracy

At the beginning of this semester, I really couldn’t conceive of ever needing an iPad – sure, I figured it would be nice to have, but beyond just needing something to blow extra money on, there didn’t seem to be much point.  And yet, I must admit that over the course of the last few months I’ve grown quite fond of the tablet.  What’s more, prior to this class I wasn’t all that interested in the news.  I think from outside a journalist’s or news junkie’s perspective, news tends to seem like a continuous report on everything that’s wrong with the world, just a giant negative spin cycle on society – or, as my dad fondly refers to the nightly news, “our daily death and destruction count.”  Having the iPads in class not only transformed my opinion of tablet computers, but of journalism in general.  The tablets present the news in such a streamlined and easy-to-use manner, it’s hard not to get attached.  I find myself pulling it out between nearly every class (and sometimes in class – hey, it’s not my fault Theo lectures get dull…) to check Twitter, Flipboard, NPR, or whatever.  And by being more or less forced to actively engage with the news, I’ve actually grown more interested in it.  I believe it was Schudson who wrote about the feeling of ‘connectedness’ people get from partaking in the news, and I can’t deny that I’ve experienced some of that, probably in part because of the iPad – if nothing else, keeping up on current events makes for more interesting conversations with people in daily situations.  At this point, I can’t deny the value in owning an iPad, but I’m still not really inclined to spend my own money on one; they’re still pretty expensive, and I think I could probably get more bang for my buck on something else, or donate some of it to a worthy cause (say, helping get radiators for needy Norwegians).  So it looks like I’ll be saying goodbye to my iPad for now…then again, Santa will be here in only three weeks…

There’s no denying that minorities are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of their representation in the press – both the frequency with which they’re covered and the type of coverage they receive.  Oftentimes they are portrayed as criminals or helpless victims, which is problematic to say the least.  We know that news picks up on the exception rather than the rule, but that’s not what the average nightly news-watcher perceives.  As Michael Schudson has pointed out, this may be because of the demographics of many journalists, who are white and suburban.  That of course affects their worldview, which inevitably translates into what makes the news and how it’s written.

Over the years, that persistent problem gave rise to the minority press, its own separate entity designed to address issues of importance in minority communities.  In a way, that was a positive move, as it gave those minorities their own outlet through which to voice their ideas and opinions.  But in some ways, we might say it actually hurt their cause – by working outside the mainstream press, they inherently limited their audience and influence.  Although they can portray themselves the way they think they should, if virtually no one reads it, what’s the difference?

What’s more, we know that the news industry has been changing rapidly the last few years because of changes in advertising and the internet news revolution.  These factors have had a crippling effect on many news outlets, from local papers all the way up to agencies like the New York Times; undoubtedly, it hurt the minority press as well.  I actually spent some time looking at numerous minority press outlets as part of a project for another class, and the results were pretty discouraging.  Their web sites are limited, poorly designed, and difficult to navigate (and that’s just of those that do have web sites).  Few of them had comprehensive archives, which makes it difficult to find past stories.  Their presence on the internet is lacking, to say the least.

So what does all this mean?  These minority media outlets are already far behind their mainstream counterparts on the internet, even as the news industry moves increasingly towards exclusively publishing online.  Major outlets are trying (and struggling) to come up with successful online business models, and quite a few have been forced to close their doors because they could not keep up.  Likewise, I suspect that this move to internet news will spell disaster for most minority press outlets.  At the end of the day, the news business is still a business, and many minority press establishments do not seem positioned to deal with the way the industry is changing.  I’d like to think that some will survive, or perhaps that they will get folded into more mainstream outlets, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Being born and raised there, I’m usually pretty proud to tell people I’m from St. Louis.  However, after following the election coverage last night and looking back over the post-election news today, I must report that the coverage I saw was minimal, and really not all that impressive.  I followed the election news pretty closely last night on Twitter, and saw updates from all kinds of people and news organizations all across the country.  The Post-Dispatch (St. Louis’s one major newspaper) made all the same updates as other news sources, but often lagged far behind.  Like half an hour behind.  It seems to me that the only outlet moving slower was perhaps the New York Times; they, of course, were waiting to confirm everything with sources.  Since they’re still the leading newspaper in the country, it’s not really in their best interest to jump on breaking news too quickly, but rather to wait a little longer and make sure their information is correct.  However, if that’s what the Post-Dispatch was after, it seems like they would publish after the Times.  Instead, their tweets usually fell somewhere in between the first announcements and the Times, which makes them just seem…well, slow.

Looking at the articles posted on their web site, most look like they’re just re-posted from the AP  (that’s disappointing, sure, but not too surprising, at least to me.  Subscriptions have been declining for them for years, forcing them to make staff cuts, so they have had to turn more and more to pre-fab news stories from the wire).  The content leaves a little to be desired too – the first thing you see on the site is a slideshow of pictures of the Obama girls, so we can see how much they’ve grown up…

Aside from the Presidential election, the Senatorial race received considerable coverage, both in Missouri and nationally.  That had mostly to do with the controversy surrounding it after Todd Akin, now of internet fame, made his comments about ‘legitimate rape’, and then refused to drop out of the race.  Despite the coverage leading up to the election, which made the race sound razor close, Claire McCaskill defeated him 55-39%, what he called “a real skunking.”  And with that, Missouri politics will probably fade back into national obscurity…

After more than a year of campaigning, this election season is finally winding down to a close, with the big day being exactly a week away.  Pretty much everyone has his or her mind made up at this point of who will win their vote come Tuesday (although the alleged ‘undecided voters’ among us continue to provide ample comedic material: http://onion.com/X9Bz1x).  That being said, most major news outlets are still participating in an age-old tradition of candidate endorsement.  Given that most everyone came to a decision some weeks ago (if not earlier), this sort of begs the question of why they even bother?  It would seem that should the undecided voters have been convince-able in the first place, one more newspaper editorial wouldn’t make much difference.  But save that for another day.

Some of said political endorsements come as no surprise to the general public; we often have preconceived notions of different outlets’ particular politics (for example, The New Yorker), so when they endorse a candidate (spoiler alert – they picked Obama) nobody bats an eye.  At other times, however, a publication’s endorsement takes us quite by surprise, as was the case when the Salt Lake Tribune, the largest paper in Salt Lake City, Utah, backed Obama.

At first glance, the New Yorker endorsement seems pretty much what we’d expect – the loquacious literary styling that we (well, some of us anyway) love about New Yorker pieces, the staunchly liberal politics, the praise of President Obama’s first term…  But a closer examination yields more interesting insights.  The editorial seems split up into three fairly neat parts: a criticism/review of Bush, a mostly praiseworthy review of Obama’s first term, and a criticism of Romney.  Though it’s no shock that they picked Obama, it does seem surprising they devoted roughly equivalent space to attacking Romney.  In apologizing for certain missteps in Obama’s political career, they also try to portray him as both an average, flawed person, and a uniquely mysterious political figure, a tactic I ultimately find unconvincing.  But then again, we could argue that readers of the New Yorker aren’t likely to care enough to change their votes.

The Tribune, on the other hand, takes a much more straightforward approach to its endorsement. They also criticize Romney pretty harshly, although more for his lack of committal to any particular political stance rather than his occasional flirting with far-right ideals.  They seem to miss the ‘pragmatic’ Romney of the past, finding this new and ever-changing version wholly unsatisfying.  The editors give their approval to some of Obama’s domestic and foreign policies, citing a successful struggle to preserve the economy, and his handling of the evolving situations in the Middle East.  Moreover, they cite Obama as a ‘competent leader’, saying he’s earned a second term.  From their tone, it sounds as though as content as they are with Obama, they are equally displeased with Romney’s shifting stances on nearly every issue, both of which proved important in their decision.

But hey, sometimes people surprise you.  Then again, sometimes they don’t.

http://nyr.kr/PEPwEc        http://shar.es/cErtF

Do the debates matter?
Absolutely they should matter. They’re based upon the idea of the Presidential candidates standing up in front of the American people and talking frankly about their stances in different issues. A way for the American people to connect directly with their potential political leaders, in a sort of proto-social media platform. Now, should they matter as much as they do? Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is that people judge the debaters primarily on looks, not necessarily policy – how they say what they say becomes at least as important. Let’s take a look at an example, published today by the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/T659oC The author, Mr. Nakamura, talks largely about how Obama’s performance today contrasted with the “sluggish” performance from last night. This is also quickly becoming an arguing point for Obama’s campaign, saying that “Romney may have won on style points”, but that his own arguments were more substantial. However, that doesn’t seem to matter, as the consensus is that Romney was the winner (http://lat.ms/WpS0FK). So if we’re primarily judging based on how they look, should these debates hold significant sway over public opinion? I would argue no. Furthermore, they only include the Democratic and Republican candidates. While those two parties certainly dominate the American political scene, they are not the end-all be-all. The Libertarian party, for one, has grown in strength in recent years. While they probably won’t win any time soon, it’s not unrealistic to imagine them splitting the Republican vote in the near future. Given that, it would be nice to see another candidate or two included. Considering these two things, I really don’t think these debates should be as significant to the Presidential race as they are. But, will I tune in next Thursday for Round 2? Probably.

I’ve never really been much of a follower of ‘hard’ news. I like to skim it from time to time to keep up a general idea of what’s going on in the world; but really, I’ve always been partial to other features, specifically the columns. They tend to be a little more literary, a little less ‘by-the-numbers’, and a little more personal.
Bearing that in mind, I’ve really enjoyed flipping through Kathleen Parker’s columns from the Washington Post over the last few weeks. Two columns in particular really caught my eye – one from late August, entitled ‘Celebrating a life well lived’, and another from a few weeks later, ‘Michelle Obama’s valentine to men’ (especially the latter). Parker hails Mrs. Obama’s speech at the DNC as “perfection” and “brilliant”, saying “only the mingy-minded could fail to be proud of America’s first lady.”
But Parker switches from political commentary to point out her favorite moment of the speech, Mrs. Obama’s riff on her father. And then, in an analysis surprising in this day and age, she interprets the quote to mean “that children need a father.” It seems this is an increasingly less popular opinion these days (or at least one that people are more hesitant to express, for fear of attracting feminist criticisms), so it was interesting that she chose to take the column in this direction. She then points out the photo of Obama accompanying this section of the speech, showing him with their two daughters, certainly a powerful and memorable moment.
This gets to an interesting side of politics – how each of the Presidential candidates tries to portray themselves through the media (in this case, as a caring family man). Obama seems pretty talented in this regard, but it may be a challenge for Romney’s campaign, as Parker thoughtfully points out in her column on Cyborg Mitt. I’m curious to see in the weeks to come how each tries to align themselves with ‘common Americans’ (the recent stir about Obama and his White House brewing being one fascinating example), and then how journalists like Parker treat those efforts.
In this case, Parker chooses to mostly avoid the political implications of Mrs. Obama’s message, but instead suggests that she tried to set an example for women and little girls throughout the nation, a sort of gift of its own. It was a nice and thoughtful moment, a welcome break from the usual political trash-talking we’ll hear in the coming weeks, and a reminder that politicians are people too.

Since receiving an iPad for our class, my relationship with the news has undoubtedly changed. Admittedly, I was skeptical whether I would notice any difference at all – after all, isn’t an iPad basically just a stripped-down version of my computer with a touch screen? Regardless, I think it does make some difference. I definitely feel more ‘connected’ to the news – I’m much more inclined to pull out the iPad for a few minutes and flip through some news stories than I am to surf the web on my computer and go looking for them. Part of this may be my affinity for the pleasing esthetics of certain news apps such as Flipboard or NPR. The sleek look they have/their presentation of the news makes it more appealing (and isn’t presentation everything?), whether or not I’m consciously interested in seeking the news. The actual layout of the device may compel me to engage with the news as well. Having an app right on the home screen, where I can connect with one click, simplifies the process immensely, whereas I would have to navigate through a myriad of web sites on my computer to retrieve the same information. However, aside from the sleek design and functionality of the device, I have to admit that part of my new level of participation is the expectation of my participation in the class. In other words, I am well aware that someone else paid for me to have this device, and now they expect me to use it. Were this sense of obligation not a factor, I am not sure that I would be as active on my iPad…well, aside from Angry Birds. I do appreciate having a piece of technology that allows me to quickly and easily call up information from around the world almost instantly; it certainly makes you feel ‘in the know’. However, I’m still inclined to question whether this level of ‘connectedness’ is a good thing. At what point does it switch from staying informed to becoming too time-consuming? What sorts of effects could these devices have on other types of media? Do those effects even matter? By communicating in cyberspace via sites like Twitter, are we hindering our own ability to think/talk/analyze at length and at a deeper level? I doubt we’ll solve these questions in our class alone, but I suspect it won’t be too much longer before society begins to answer some of them. Hopefully we’ll be comfortable with the answers we find.

So the blog assignment for this week was to compare wedding announcements from two different newspapers to see what that might reveal about the organizations, readership, etc. However, with roughly twenty other people doing the same thing, that felt a little overdone, so I decided to do it with a twist, and looked at obituaries instead. In a way, I think these are actually a bit more telling, since they tend to delve more into the lives of the individual. At any rate, the first obit I looked at comes from the (e-)pages of the LA Times, eulogizing Jerome Horowitz, a medical researcher who spent most of his career at Wayne State University. The second is an obituary for Bob Morse, published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. And frankly, the difference between the two is pretty striking. Dr. Horowitz’s obit focuses primarily on his accomplishments as a researcher; evidently, he helped develop an early drug to fight AIDS, something we learn from the title alone. The obit actually spends a pretty significant chunk space discussing the life of his drug, AZT, as well as the other scientific ventures of which Dr. Horowitz was a part. It seems fascinating to me that the space is equally devoted to his projects as to the man himself, and it also seems that the writer tried to place him within a larger historical context. This is likely an acknowledgement of the Times’ readership – they are trying both to remember this man who is of significance to a wide body of people, as well as to make his life interesting to a pretty wide and diverse audience. The obituary for Mr. Morse, on the other hand, seems much more personal; the language seems to focus on how much he was loved and how much he will be missed, rather than how much he accomplished. We are told some about his career, learning that he served in the Army in Vietnam, before returning home to teach and coach sports at a variety of schools, painting him as a sort of classic all-American working man (as opposed to Dr. Horowitz, whom we are explicitly told wished to escape the family poultry business). Now, the Post-Dispatch is a considerably smaller paper, and it is conceivable that an appreciable number of its readers had some connection to Mr. Morse (especially given his teaching position at schools in the area). We might even draw connections between stereotypes of West Coast people and Midwesterners, the former more consumeristic, the latter more preoccupied with family/American values. Whatever any of that’s supposed to mean.

http://lat.ms/QGICJY
http://bit.ly/PaxJ1E