Journalism and American Democracy

Just over a week ago, I parted with the iPad for the semester. I originally thought that the sorrowful goodbye would be more difficult than it actually was. In the seven days since returning the iPad to its proper owner, my life has remained mostly unchanged. I would be lying if I said I didn’t miss the convenience, didn’t miss the sleek touch screen, or didn’t miss the Twitter interface. But really, the iPad had not made a huge impact on my daily life.

When I first received the iPad, I was hesitant to acknowledge its value. I was worried that it would become an inseparable part of me and that and that I would be judged for using it in public. I quickly got over each of those fears and hesitations. I found the iPad to be tremendously helpful in classes and in life (using it for course readings and calendar organizing). But at the same time, the iPad was a mere convenience and did not really serve many unique functions that can’t be found elsewhere. After the first few weeks of having the iPad, its novelties wore off and I ended up using it a lot less than I thought I would. I’m worried how easy it became for me to use the iPad in public, both in class and around campus. Before having an iPad, I looked down on people who used them all the time- I thought they were just another pretentious use of technology. But I quickly got comfortable using it anywhere and overcame the fact that others might look down upon me for doing that.

Although I’ve stated that the iPad didn’t change my life, it did have its advantages. I’ve learned since not having it how easy it was to tote it around for checking email, Twitter, Facebook, or ESPN. I now understand why they are so trendy. The iPad, and other tablets, are definitely the future of personal technology. Being so easy to integrate into daily life, tablets will likely continue to gain popularity. While I would probably not purchase an iPad for myself, if given another opportunity to use one for an extended period of time, I would not turn it down.

And since you probably can’t get the song out of your head…

With just hours left in this crazy campaign, there is more speculation than ever as to who the man will be that runs this country for the next four years.  Everyone seems to have his or her own input, and major news sources are not exempt.  As to the effectiveness or relevance of newspaper endorsements, I cannot hazard a guess.  But what I do know is that the media is expected to remain largely neutral (see “professionalism”), and this is one of the few times that newspapers outright declare which candidate it supports.  Gone are the façades of political agendas wrapped in rhetoric – this is a display of newspapers taking a stance in the final hour.

I compared two very different news sources from geographically diverse locations, and with very different audiences: The Baltimore Sun and The Daily Herald.  Each newspaper endorsed one candidate and one candidate only.

The Baltimore Sun, as many other newspapers seemed to do, endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election with more than just a hint of concern.  This concern sprung out of many unfulfilled promises and blunders of the Obama administration over the last four years.  One of the biggest issues touched upon was the divide between our two parties in this political system we have adopted as our own.  At the beginning of the article, although the Baltimore Sun supports the president, Obama’s shortcomings were laid out one by one, ending with the statement saying, “…most disappointingly, the promise of a new politics to move us beyond a long and bitter partisan divide remains painfully unfulfilled,” in regards to the president’s last term.  The Baltimore Sun concluded, “We endorse President Obama for re-election, with this caution: We can’t afford four more years of gridlock. Perhaps Republicans will be more willing to work with a second-term President Obama, perhaps they won’t, but the buck stops with him.”  Essentially, the Sun states that we must overcome the party divides and collaborate to actually bolster this weak economy that our country is grappling with now.  Again, by stressing the importance of bipartisanship or bust, the Baltimore Sun warily cast their endorsement vote for Obama.

The Daily Herald, on the other hand, seemed more sure in their decision to endorse Mitt Romney in this election.  It is important to note that this Chicago suburb newspaper backed Senator Obama just four years ago at this time.  This article walked through the decision-making process of switching across the aisle in their endorsement.  However, rather than point fingers to simply make the opponent look bad, the Herald gave a fair account, saying “Whomever is elected will be trusted in large measure with the fate of a stumbling economy, a foreboding debt crisis, a gridlocked government and an unstable world.”  And while this article was fair, it clearly outlined the differences between the candidates: “… it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.”  In the end, however, the Daily Herald could not dispute the fact that the economic crisis is at the forefront of American concerns, saying, “Ultimately, we endorse Romney because he, unlike Obama, understands that jobs are a creation of business, not of government.”

In this brief pause in American political history – the calm before the storm, or at least the ceasing of winds for the time being – gives rise to some interesting commentary from our sources of news.

Alright, alright…I guess I’ll take the free iPad you’re throwing at me.  Admittedly, I was not the first person to jump on the iPad bandwagon.  It seems like a lighter computer with a more annoying keyboard.  I sound like an old grouchy man, but it’s true – these are my feelings.

After messing around with all of the cool apps that the iPad has to offer, I consider myself mistaken – they’re awesome.  And addicting.  I’ve found that after discovering and personalizing Flipboard, I get annoyed with your plain ol’ newspaper over breakfast.  Why?  Because all the sudden newspapers are a hassle.  They unfold into huge spreads, they are not really visually appealing, and I find myself zoning out  while skimming over headlines of news I don’t really want to read, now that I know what personalized news is like.

That is not to say that I’m going to start purging my shelves of physical books, only to amass a gigantic library of e-books on the iPad.  Nor does it mean that I will reach for my iPad when I need to write a 5 page paper.  There are some limitations to this amazing little machine, and I don’t want to get too carried away here.

In the end, receiving iPads in this class offers a unique experience for us students: we can get a real feel for all that iPads have to offer.  This extends beyond the classroom and beyond class content, and that, my technologically equipped friends, is something very exciting indeed.

Using the iPad this semester has revolutionized the way that I interact with social media, technology, the Internet and the news. I have become an informed citizen, motivated to stay updated on the important events happening in America and around the world. While I know the ambition to get involved with the news comes in part from my interest in the topics we discuss in class, I think the deciding factor was the iPad, which offered convenience and ease to consume news within my daily schedule. As David Carr said in the Page One documentary, we now have the ability to get updated on the news in the time it takes to wait in line for a cup of coffee. I use the iPad to check Twitter, Flipboard, and The New York Times regularly, if not constantly, throughout the day.

Not only has the news become an integral part of my daily routine, but the iPad has also changed the way that I do homework. Having the ability to open, download, read, annotate, save, and refer back to articles on a single device is great for an American Studies student, who has no shortage of reading assignments. I bring the iPad with me everywhere and love that everything I need is stored in one place.

Over the semester, I have been no stranger to other students making fun of me for having an iPad. The frequent response I get when students find out the University provided iPads to our class is: what? Why? Okay, it’s super convenient. That’s great. But why? Why did the Notre Dame sink money into giving the newest gadget to a group of journalism students? The undeniable fact is that iPads, or tablets in general, represent the future of how the public is going to obtain news. As we have studied this semester, print journalism is gradually fading out and tablets embody the technology that will replace it. Though many people remain sentimental and long for the old ways of doing things, as we saw with Kathleen Parkers anti-Twitter speech, technology is advancing quickly. As students with an interest in entering the journalism field, our futures depend on our ability to stay updated on the technology with which our stories will be made available to the public. I feel that, as journalists, we were given a great opportunity to embrace technology this semester; we created intellectual Twitter feeds, set up personal blogs, observed the way that other journalists embrace social media (Brian Stelter, anyone?) and familiarized ourselves with the growing world of online news.  The opportunity to use the iPad put us ahead of the game in the journalism world. Because of the familiarity I have gained with the technology, I know I am better prepared to work as a journalist because I have a better handle on where the future of news is heading.

So, while the iPad has done great things to change my life this semester, it has also been hard at work changing the way that the media operates in America.  Though it is sad to say goodbiPad, I know that this is not the last I will see of tablet technology, and the iPad will grow to be a widespread fixture in the lives of many Americans quite soon.

There exists an undeniable parallel between the level of cultural acceptance of a racial group and the amount of news coverage devoted to them. Journalism has remained dominated by coverage of white men and white issues since the concept of media was invented. To compensate for the uneven representation, racial groups fought back by creating alternative newspapers published by different racial minorities. Such newspapers have allowed members of racial minorities to find their niche in the news, but this does not compensate for their failure to give fair coverage to all minorities. The unequal representation has serious effects on society. In her article “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Case,” Pamela Newkirk quoted a National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders panel that stated, “By failing to portray the Negro as a matter of routine and in the context of the total society, the news media have, we believe, contributed to the black-white schism in this country,” (The Press, 88). By leaving the racial minority groups out of press coverage, journalists misrepresent reality to Americans. Although African Americans have fought back by creating their own newspapers and media outlets, such as BBC or The Chicago Defender, the racial minorities are still not fairly acknowledged in the press. It is 2012, approaching fifty years past the civil rights movement. In this modern day, it is appalling to see such a bold example of inequality as this one.

When looking at African American newspapers such as The Chicago Defender and The Chicago Crusader, the substandard quality is shocking. I say this not to put down the people who have formed these newspapers, because they have obviously done so out of determination for equality, which is honorable and admirable. However, it is undeniably disheartening to compare newspapers like these to The Chicago Tribune or even The Chicago Sun Times. The differences in quality are stark, and they epitomize the perceived difference in “American-ness” between African-Americans and whites. The African American public should have access to a reputable paper that will provide them news that is relevant to their lives. After the Civil Rights Movement, large steps were made in changing laws to make America a more accepting place for African Americans. However, changing public opinion to accept African Americans as an integral part of our country is a war that continues on. The difference in the newspaper quality provided for African Americans than that provided for whites is comparative to the difference between the facilities, such as water fountains or public bathrooms, provided to African Americans and whites during the years of segregation.

I believe Americans easily convince themselves that the racial tension that divided our country in the past is behind them. However, looking at the difference in the publications for African Americans and those provided for white readers clearly proves that these problems are ongoing. The first amendment of the United States constitution provides freedom of the press to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to remain informed through the media. African Americans are being denied this right because they are ignored by reputable newspapers and unable to form their own because of the widespread discrimination in the industry. They deserve equality, especially equality of information provided by the press.

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.

It is no surprise that The Chicago Tribune has chosen to endorse President Barack Obama in the upcoming election—he is, after all, a Chicago native who was dubbed “Chicago’s favorite son” in 2008 during his race against Senator John McCain. Any Chicagoan, myself included, remembers watching Obama stand in Grant Park in front of dozens of American flags and thousands of cheering Americans the night he won his election and became the first African American president in history. His campaign for hope and change, combined with the feeling that we were literally witnessing history being made, created an electric energy that moved our city. This is a city that loves Obama. Surprisingly though, the article remains evenly partisan and refrains from endorsing and praising the President blindly. The Tribune offers strong reasoning for backing up Obama, but reminds the reader that there are certain areas in which Romney stands above Obama and thematically reminds the reader that bipartisan agreement is crucial if American’s want to see progress made in fighting the ever-growing deficit these next four years.

This is a city that has proudly watched him take on the challenges that awaited him when he took office—a failing economy, the housing and auto industries on the brink of collapse, and a limited number of jobs available. He has taken on these issues and made progress; despite the long road ahead, the Tribune credits Obama with maintaining pragmatism consistently throughout the campaign. The Tribune went onto backup their somewhat predictable endorsement, saying Obama has led our country by acting with “decisiveness and intellectual rigor,” that they saw in him four years ago. The Tribune use his track record—impressive handling of world affairs, some tax cuts, and passing a revolutionary health care plan for all Americans. But they also acknowledge his many shortcomings as president, including his failure to decrease the out-of-control deficit and instead doubling it during his term. They end with a plea to whoever shall take their spot in the White House this January: to face the deficit head on and do anything possible to reduce it, for it is the future generation who will condemn their fathers if they are left to clean up the mess left by politicians who have the power and awareness to do something now. By intellectually establishing the issues, and acknowledging the failings of Obama, The Chicago Tribune provides a strong, well thought out case for their endorsement of the President, even though we all saw that one coming.

What is surprising, however, is that good old Barack has not succeeded in maintaining the support of everyone in his hometown. The Dailey Herald, an independent suburban Chicago newspaper, recently announced their endorsement for Governor Romney. One city; two candidates; each of them gaining popularity among the Chicagoans. The newspaper cited loss of hope as their reasoning for changing their democratic endorsement in 2008 to supporting the republicans in 2012. However, the article fails to go into the issues. Instead, they give a bleak overview of politics today, writing, “Today, our country is still polarized, our politics is still partisan, our economy slugs along painfully on one of the slowest recoveries in history and the country’s debt threatens our future and the future of our children.” Although the newspaper acknowledges that Obama does not deserve all of the fault for the issues facing our country today, they place a lot of the burden on his shoulders. Addressing why they chose to support of Romney, they argue that Obama has failed to characterize the different classes in America and address them fairly during his time in office. Thus, they have turned to Romney, who has promised to provide jobs through businesses, not government, and successfully work across the aisle to create bipartisan solutions for the problems facing America today. To work together for the common good, the newspaper argues, is the most important thing. Interestingly, The Dailey Herald fails to go into many specifics, rather settling for vague claims about the candidate’s record in handling issues and overall philosophies. Without the concrete reasoning for their support of Romney, the endorsement comes off as more of a political move than a well thought out decision.

Using publications from a candidate’s hometown usually fails to provide an unbiased decision for their endorsement, so it is refreshing to see The Chicago Tribune offering strong reasoning behind their decision to support their hometown hero. Interestingly, this reasoning was even stronger than that provided by The Dailey Herold, who used ideas rather than facts and events to maintain their surprising claim that Romney should take over the White House in January. Although Illinois is one of the most decided states in this election, these articles would be extremely useful for an Illinois native to take a look at so they can ensure that they are voting for their candidate for the right reasons, and not just because he came from their city.

Sources:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-26/news/chi-obama-endorsement-chicago-tribune-20121026_1_president-obama-barack-obama-tax-cuts

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121028/discuss/710289939/

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.

While the debates may not have a huge impact on the overall outcome of the presidential election, I believe that they matter very much. The debates are the one event where the American public gets the watch their leader, and potential new leader, be challenged on their policies and beliefs and provide support for their political point of view. In very few contexts is it appropriate to challenge the President about his particular stance on an issue or his progress as our leader. I found it fascinating to watch the two candidates finally address their policies and ideas straight to the American public.
The other reason I believe the debates are important is that they force the candidates to solidly explain the reasoning behind their political positions, and more importantly, their plans for change. While we can read about these things online and brush up on the facts, there is a certain effect if “hearing it from the horses mouth” that resinates strongly with me. The debates allow people to judge the demeanor, attitude, viewpoint and ideology of each candidate. This is especially important for undecided voters. Even for me, a decided voter, I found it extremely valuable to have the facts surrounding the most pertinent issues surrounding the debate (namely: the economy, health care, education) laid out by the men who will be in charge.
Overall, the debates require the candidates to stand up and account for their decisions. I believe it is a very valuable part of the election process. There is more the the race than deciding on a winner– it is a learning process that offers Americans a great opportunity to get involved in politics and their government, get educated on the issues, get motivated to vote and fight for the changes that they want to see in their country. The debate is a fantastic outlet for people to utilize when it comes to accomplishing these goals.

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.

​News coverage of the Presidential race, especially over the past few weeks in the wake of Romney’s 47% comment, has been buzzing with criticism on Romney’s demeanor. The general consensus seems to be that Romney is robotic, detached, callous, with no empathy for the non-millionaire masses, etc etc. Where Obama has secured a place in American hearts, despite his record and promises left unfulfilled in his presidency, Romney is sorely lagging. As Kathleen Parker points out in her article entitled “The Likability Trap” for the Washington Post, “One of the great fallacies of politics – and life – is that one must be liked to be effective…’Like me, please’ has become the operative prerogative of campaigns”. Arguably, the extent to which a candidate is supported by the American public is influenced more by the “warm fuzzies” the public gets from them, and less so by the candidates’ policies.

No doubt Obama knows there is virtually no competition in the “likability” department – the press is overwhelmingly behind him, and his campaign has zeroed in on this. When asked to present his stance on Social Security and Medicare, allotted only two minutes (one of many time constraints which were largely disregarded by both candidates), Obama devoted a significant portion of his time to a personal anecdote about his grandmother. Rather than defend and explain his policies, Obama focused on a story that tugged at heartstrings, drawing the audience in by the intimacy of this story.

Light on the facts, with a side order of mushy, please.

This was no accident – Obama has a team of very smart, strategic campaign managers (as does Romney, I am sure). No doubt he anticipated this question and honed in on the personal, because that’s what resonates with the American public.

If Romney’s main concern going into the debate was winning over those voters who are still on the fence, I think he did a fantastic job, appearing to have the upper hand in most portions of the debate. As one political analyst pointed out in the commentary immediately following the debate, this “close race just got closer”.

As far as “likability” goes, Romney made a few plucks at our American heartstrings, which were feeble at best and potentially offensive at worst. His “Joe the Plumber” anecdotes from the campaign trail seemed more like one-liners thrown into his responses because his campaign manager told him so than heartfelt stories. And his slip-up of referring to underprivileged children as “poor kids” did absolutely nothing to help his callous image – I can just see the advocacy groups’ criticisms now…

However, any doubts about Romney based on personality that on-the-fencers may have had before tonight, in my opinion, should be eclipsed by his clarity, honesty, and justification of policies – the hard facts that Obama seems to have simply left out. Whether Obama wiggled around these details in regards to his own policies, or his defense of them was just not as strong as Romney’s I couldn’t really say. But it is clear that Romney’s frank, direct, candid manner of speaking about his policies closed the “likability” gap considerably tonight.

Only time will tell if this will be enough for Mitt Romney, or if President Obama will see another term.

While the debate is always interesting to watch, this time around I had a much different experience because I chose to simultaneously look at my Twitter feed while watching the debate. Because I use my twitter account to follow mostly political news organizations and journalists, the feed blew up during the debate—everyone had a comment to share and Twitter is the perfect outlet on which to do so. In 140 characters or less people shared opinions, reactions, corrections to the many facts spewed off by candidates, and cracked humorous jokes. Using Twitter transformed my experience of watching the debate. While I still had my own personal reactions to what the candidates were saying, I was also reacting to the things other people were constantly posting on Twitter, and it became a little bit of a political overload.

I was most surprised at the speed in which people’s reactions were posted. Live tweeting was taken to a whole new level—quotes by Obama seemed to be shared before he even finished talking! Forget minute-by-minute journalism, this was news second by second. The benefit was that no part of the debate went uncovered. The downside: the information was hard to keep up with and quickly became overwhelming. Because there were such a multitude of organizations and individuals throwing in their two cents the commentary piled up and quickly became out of control.

However, following organizations such as politifact allowed me to look at the debate in a different light. Instead of taking the candidates words and facts at face value, I really learned how they were framing the issues and at times giving impressions of their positions on issues that didn’t necessarily reflect the truth.

Overall, making use of Twitter during the debate enhanced my understanding of what the politicians were talking about and inspired me to come up with my own opinions about the things they were saying.

My take? Romney clearly dominated, coming in from the beginning with strong answers and relentless support for his position. He did not back down but rather overwhelmed the incumbent president with his background knowledge, statistics, and zingers. Obama’s performance was disappointing; he failed to present his point of view with the confidence that Americans want to see in their leader.  However, the one area where he dominated was that he talked straight to the American people while Romney sometimes lost the audience with strings of facts and history that confused more than they helped. Obama was able to give clear answers and plans that outline success for the future. I would have liked to see him bring up more of the positive progress he has made in the last four years and touch on the issues that could have challenged Romney a little bit more. Unfortunately, he stumbled over his words and seemed to lack a clear train of thought. Romney’s performance showed America that he is still a viable candidate for the 2012 race.

One thing is for sure: the debate shook things up and made for a much more interesting race in the months ahead. Watching it with the iPad in front of me made for a much clearer understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates. I look forward to watching the next debates and seeing how they factor into the results of November’s presidential election.

Throughout the course of this semester, I have solidified my belief that journalism cannot and should not try to always be objective. Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker champions this view in many of her weekly columns we took a look at this week. Her take on the news in general, as well as the public’s understanding of the events going on and the major actors who affect them, is refreshing, frank and candid. To say the Parker’s style of writing is unique is an understatement. In a media world so bogged down by constant, superficial reports presented as a series of facts mixed with commentary, Parker’s articles offer a rational, encompassing yet simple look at what is happening in our world.

This simple and informative tone that Parker takes is perhaps best exemplified in the article about Romney’s recent 47% comment, entitled “Cyborg Mitt Speaks Out.” In this article, she addresses the callous comment made by Romney, with a nod to people’s frustrations with his character in general. However, rather than simply berating Romney for the duration of the article, as many others have done, and continue to do, Parker takes a step back and adds a healthy dose of reality and perspective to the conversation. She tells us, “What he meant was he doesn’t plan to focus [campaign] resources on voters who will never embrace his message.” She further goes on to say, “If only Cyborg Mitt had said it this way,” writing an eloquent, relatable and understandable paragraph, both explaining what he meant by the comment in a more tactful manner, while addressing plans to help those dependent on welfare for the future – the unspoken other half of what Romney meant.

Kathleen Parker seems to be the candid, passionate, and informative sort of journalist I have been searching for this semester. Her topics range from the personal to the highly political, all the while remaining understandable and engaging. Salud, Ms. Parker.

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.

Kathleen Parker’s voice comes through strongly in each article reinforcing the feeling that you are talking about major world issues with someone who could be your best friend. Her honesty is something to be admired, especially when working in an industry that is not short on critics. But she maintains a lively and positive tone that much journalism is lacking. Her matter-of-fact attitude reinforces my belief that she has a logical point of view and goes a long way in securing people who agree with her points.

Writing as an opinion columnist seems to give her the freedom that journalists crave; her job allows her to go beyond objectivity and inspire people to really think about the issues in the news. As we have just wrapped up our conversation in class about the homogeneity that is becoming problematic in media, Parker’s essays offer a refreshing style. Her articles on the election grab my attention because they are separate from much of the election coverage that has begun to run together in my mind. Taking risks (labeling Mitt Romney a cyborg) and sharing her point of view freely (“No longer do we get what we pay for, as the adage goes. We get what the activists want—and we all pay for it,” wrote Parker in her article regarding MSNBC’s blatant favoritism of the incumbent president in their election coverage) Parker manages to win me over, and many others I’m sure.

Another factor that sets apart her journalism is the broad range of topics she covers. Ranging from politics to her family life to the abortion issue and its play at Notre Dame, she approaches each piece with a strong point of view that is backed up accordingly. Her voice comes through in each piece so we can tell that she is confident in her writing. I applaud her writing and her ability to show that subjective journalism is important and can have an impact on readers to inspire them as citizens just like standard journalism does.

Comparing the wedding announcements from a big city newspaper to those published in a community post offers a lot of insight into the difference in intended audiences. The Chicago Tribune publishes, on average, short paragraphs that offer the necessary information about the bride and groom. Generally, it touches on their name, age, job, schooling, date and location of the wedding, and where they plan to go for their honeymoon. A picture is included with each announcement as well. This matter-of-fact reporting style shows that The Chicago Tribune understand that their readers are not purchasing the paper in hopes of catching up on the local gossip or social happenings, but rather interested in serious news happening in their city. Also, given the large audience that the Chicago Tribune is catering to, it is understood that many of the readers will not know anyone mentioned in the wedding announcements and are therefore not concerned with the information given in these articles. For this reason, they keep the wedding announcements short and to the point.

This is not the case for the wedding announcements published in The Connecticut Post, however. Utilizing much space for their celebration section, this newspaper publishes multi-paragraph articles covering each wedding. Every detail about the function is included. In addition to the basic facts covered in the Tribune’s articles, the Post discusses the parents of the bride and groom, names the maid of honor, best man and ring bearer, and touches on how the bride and groom met each other. The Post understands their audience well. Many of the readers of this newspaper will know the families of the bride and groom and are very interested to know the details of their wedding. By including such facts, the Post is catering to the interests of their audience very well. Also, one can assume that the readers of the Connecticut Post have a genuine interest in the members of their community more than you would find in a large city such as Chicago. To them, news about weddings and celebrations may be equally relevant to serious news regarding events going on worldwide.

Connecticut Post example: http://www.ctpost.com/weddings/article/Perry-Procaccini-3881763.php

Chicago Tribune example: http://www.legacy.com/celebration/chicagotribune/celebrations-announcement.aspx?n=ricardo-garcia&aid=155565097

As somebody who has not always paid attention to the news, I know first hand the challenges associated with understanding the news for the first time. After starting college last year, my interest was sparked about the issues going on in the world and I was truly interested in grasping them. However, I struggled greatly to understand the news I was reading and found that I was missing background necessary for comprehending news. Getting informed involves much more than just turning on CNN or flipping through The New York Times. But I couldn’t figure out where to get the background information that would help me understand stories in the news today. Even when I spent time reading the headlines and stories for weeks in a row, I still felt like there was so much I had missed when discussing events going on in the world with others.

Using the iPad has completely changed this feeling. The iPad allows me to become involved with the news and I feel up to date on a wide range important issues and events going on. Apps like Flipboard, Google Reader, and Skygrid incorporate a wealth of news sources so that I can read about issues from many different angles and frames. The iPad has greatly expanded the news sources that I use. I used to be someone who mainly read The Chicago Tribune and occasionally The New York Times, but now am fascinated by Poynter articles, have become a big Politico fan, and my love-hate relationship with Huffington Post continues to develop. The iPad, and especially Twitter, allow me to see articles from each of these sources right next to each other so I can easily compare what they say. This deepens my understanding of the issues greatly; I am not just being fed an opinion by a single source but instead critically analyzing the way the facts are presented differently by each media organization.

My classes in college provide a lot of motivation for me to stay involved with the news and the iPad allows me to follow through on it. In the short time since we received the iPad, I feel that I have been transformed to a “news junkie” and I can’t say that I don’t enjoy it. As someone who believes that all American citizens are born with the obligation to be involved with what is going on around them, I feel lucky to have this resource that allows me to do so with such convenience. The iPad has greatly expanded the breadth of the news that I take in while deepening my interest.

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