Journalism and American Democracy

The state of Illinois was considered by many to be decided before election night even began. Nevertheless, I can image it was exciting for President Obama, the 44^th leader of the United States of America, to see his home-state turn blue last night. Big O took 57.8% of votes in Illinois, where 900,000 people chose to vote early including the President himself.  Obama chose to spend November 6^th in his hometown of Chicago, sharing a family dinner at home and then heading to the Merchandise Mart where he gave his acceptance speech. His speech gave credit to the voters who have given the President the chance to move forward and continue to do the job that was entrusted to him in 2008. He promises that he has listened to Americans about what needs to happen in order for this country to regain his footing and proudly thanked Vice President Joe Biden, his wife, and his daughters.

The mood in Chicago was much less celebratory than Obama’s first victory in 2008—only 20,000 people were in attendance for his rally as opposed to 200,000 four years ago. The feeling was described less as excitement and more as relief. This is interesting for Democrats especially, many of whom acknowledge that the President’s policies have not helped our nation to progress as much as they’d like, especially to help decrease the deficit, but prefer him to Romney. The “lesser of two evils” viewpoint was widespread throughout America in this historic election. It seems that voters are excited for the Democrats to keep hold of the White House but aware that Obama needs to work a lot harder on job creation and diminishing the deficit before they will cheer as loudly for him again.

The real excitement in Illinois came from the four congressional seats won by Democrats in the House. Tammy Duckworth, an army veteran who lost both legs from injuries sustained by a blast in Iraq, won one seat for the Democrats. Another winner, somewhat shockingly was Democrat Jesse L. Jackson, who is currently under investigation for attempting to sell President Obama’s senate seat after he was elected to the presidency. He recently was hospitalized for mental illness as well. Still, he somehow managed to garner the majority and keep another democratic seat in Illinois.

Overall, Illinois was an exciting place to watch the election and proud to host their hometown hero elected to his second term as President. Illinois residents stand behind Obama, though they contribute to the pressure put on Obama to perform better this time around and make serious progress.

Looking at a meta-analysis of newspaper endorsements of the top hundred newspapers by circulation, a few things strike me. First, the two largest newspapers, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not generally endorse candidates. There are a couple of others as well, perhaps most notably Deseret News, which one imagines would lean pro-Romney if for nothing other than its name. Secondly, both these newspapers have lost fairly significant ground to newspapers that do in the last four years, USA Today in particular. Thirdly, the influence of such newspapers has diminished. Their total subscriptions went from 27,138,751 subscriptions to 23,598,488, a loss of over three and a half million. Thirdly, it is notable that Romney already outnumbers McCain in the number of endorsements he’s received, and is only two hundred thousand behind McCain in terms of subscriptions of those newspapers. Since there are still a little under a third of newspapers who have not endorse either candidate, things look more optimistic for him than McCain, and indeed he is significantly closer to Obama in terms of both newspapers and subscribers than McCain was (though lagging behind Obama in aggregate).

Regardless, I looked at the two largest newspapers’ endorsements, for two reasons. First, if we presume subscription number has any effect on newspapers influence, and we must if we are to accept the premise that newspapers can influence the matter at all, these two papers combined represent over one percent of the electorate and a little under ten percent of top hundred newspaper subscriptions. Secondly newspapers desire success and thus might seek to emulate their styles if not their content. Thirdly they are more directly comparable simply for the fact both newspapers endorsed Barrack Obama both in this and the previous election, thus both being ‘loyalists’ of his. Indeed, the Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower.

I wonder, and in truth do not know, how endorsement decisions are made. But it seems to break all rules of professionalism present elsewhere. The articles are unabashedly normative, loyalist, and hostile in a way uncommon to professional press and more suited to party rags. Notably the LA Times calls it an ‘endorsement’ while the New York Times calls it an ‘editorial’, but it is not really the latter because this is a statement of the views of the newspaper, not just the writer. It is true that it is an opinion rather than news, but it cannot be followed by the usual disavowal that it is the writer’s and not the newspaper’s opinion which is a staple of that genre. Despite the increased culpability, there is little admission of imperfection in either, and nearly half of the LA Times piece is dedicated not to talking up Obama but attacking Romney. While this is expected of politicos, it certainly opens them to criticism and accusations of dirty partisanship I would think a paper would avoid.

I also find it remarkable how blind both endorsements seem. They seem entirely unaware, for example, that someone might look at certain things they condemn Romney for and see them as good things. If they were aware, I think, they would have put some arguments in support of such a position, and thus its absence speaks to it. To use a more controversial example, both the LA Times and New York Times speak of the overturning of Roe v Wade as a strike against Romney without explaining or qualifying it, ignoring that the last Gallup poll has’pro-choice’ Americans are at a record low and outnumbered by ‘pro-life’ Americans. This is not to open that debate, I feel I must stress, but merely to point out that they treat this as a persuasive argument rather than a point to be defended. If we take this as a true barometer of the opinions of the newspaper, that implies the newspaper is so liberal that it cannot understand conservatism as a phenomenon, which is unfortunate.

Also, to the Los Angeles Times, ‘modulating’ is not an acceptable synonym for mutable, varying, wishy washy, flip flopping, or any such word, if not in denotation then in connotation.

All in all, I’m skeptical of the effects this will actually have on the election, but they are interesting as a phenomena in of themselves. And perhaps more interestingly to me, it seems perhaps the most firm evidence for the liberal leanings of the press, which up till now I had seen little but speculation and the bitter raving of conservatives about.

Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-president-20121021,0,5490210.story

Just yesterday the country witnessed the 13th Presidential debate since the Kennedy-Nixon Debate in 1960. To the undecided voter, this is a chance to view if first hand how the nominees differ in positions. But to the decided voter this is merely a chance to bash on the opposed candidate. Is that really the case?

It seems that when the debates have come around, it is the decided voters who show more enthusiasm for the debates. It is like their “Jerry Springer”. But what about the undecided voters? If the debates are in place to help the undecided voters, why is there much less enthusiasm on their part? Because it is the decided voters that are more likely to actually view the debates, it seems useless to have them if their main purpose is to inform the undecided voter.

But is that really the case? The debates have become so engrained in the bureaucratic system, that their motive – while initially benevolent – has become a mere tool for candidates to show that if you speak with more assertion and poise, you can win the debate. Take yesterday’s debate. While Obama remained more factual, it was Romney’s assertive mannerism that helped him win the debate. Because of this I see no motive for the presidential debates. Not until the undecided voter shows more enthusiasm and actually pays attention to the debates, will the debates be remotely relevant.

But for the inebriation-seeking person, they can wholeheartedly say they watched the tetra-annual event along with the rest of politically-active population….while playing the “Debate Drinking Game.”

Done in a twenty minute timed session for class, on an iPad.

Question: Do the debates matter?

The debates matter, though perhaps not to the degree that we have been led to believe. If nothing else, minimally, they have affected the ways parties perceive their potential candidates. The question of how well they’d do in a debate is one they hold important, and where there is such a belief the ponderous weight of factors follow. And when it comes down to it these factors, even minor ones, can have great effects. Not to mention that, as a spectacle, it too can draw crowds. And wayward American Studies students.

As to whether it sways people, gives them an eye into the candidate, it does to some degree. Public speaking can be taught but cannot really be faked. Debate skills again can be taught, but not necessarily faked. And while I might otherwise add discipline, such as that needed to stay within a time limit, is likewise, at last night’s debate we seemed to have none of that. The truth is that while most Americans get a good deal of their news by hearsay (“Obama Says Romney…”) via the news, or clips chosen by the same news, the debates are at least less filtered. While preparation is possible, I expect nothing said last night was ‘off the cuff’, it is still an indication of a personal skill. Not the most relevant one, perhaps, but a skill nonetheless.

But I cannot say that people take such debates seriously. Pollsters and politicos seem to think otherwise, and I can only muster a rational argument against them. Yet when the rational and empirical clash, the empirical usually wins. Still, one imagines it has at least had an effect on the candidates and how their parties choose them. No one wants to be Nixon, and if nothing else, our candidates seem to be getting handsomer, more photogenic. And if in no other way, that means they’re here to say, and be felt, in American elections.