Journalism and American Democracy

As my time with the iPad is quickly coming to an end, I realize how attached I have grown to a technology that I never thought I needed. Getting the opportunity to use the iPad was such a great experience, because it was like a technology test drive, where I got to try out the iPad and all its capabilities for the semester. Prior to this class, my mom would often call or text me, asking me if I had heard about a particular news story or event. More often than not, my response would be something along the lines of “No, I don’t really watch the news. I live in the Notre Dame bubble.” During the course of this semester, though, I found that I was much more connected to the world outside of Notre Dame, as a result of the class discussions we had, as well as the convenience of the iPad.

Although I do not necessarily see myself continuing with the use of Twitter after this semester, it was interesting to see what it was all about after having been encouraged by my friends to join for ages. I still do not love Twitter, because I feel it is used by many people in a manner that is less than productive, it was interesting to learn about what a major asset it is becoming for journalists. While it was initially challenging for me to find a story to tweet everyday, I eventually found myself checking Twitter and finding stories to tweet without deliberately having to search for one. Admittedly, prior to this semester, the “news source” I most commonly read was probably people.com. Through the use of Twitter, I have been able to read headlines and stories more quickly and easily from a greater variety of sources.  This is the same reason I also love the Flipboard app, because I was able to follow all the news sources I was interested in, as well as my social media networks, in one easy place. In fact, I think I like Flipboard more than Twitter, because I particularly like how visual it is, with the bold headlines and photos being more engaging.

It is going to be a sad day on Thursday when I have to return my iPad (I always have called it “my” iPad in denial of the that I would not be able to keep it…), but I really enjoyed having it for the semester in order to more completely immerse myself in the relationship between journalism and democracy. As a non-journalism student, this class was a great introduction of sorts. The use of the iPad allowed us to really immerse ourselves in the new technologies associated with the journalism profession. So not only were we learning about journalism and its conventions, but also acting as mini journalists as we also employed these technologies. So after a wonderful semester together, on Thursday I will fondly say “goodbiPad.”

Many people may think that the debates no longer matter, especially with the proliferation of various other media sources that voters may refer to at any time, rather than tuning into the debates and listening to the, at times, painful discourse. However, I would argue that the debates are now more relevant than ever, as new forms of social media draw attention to them in unique ways. According to Beth Fouhy, a journalist for the Associated Press,last night’s debate drew 11.1 million comments on Twitter, making it the fourth most tweeted telecast of any kind. I do not know if the debates necessarily have huge power in swaying voters, but it is clear that they still have the power to garner the attention of large audiences. If any type of broadcast can incite that much buzz in a day and age when there are arguably more demands on our time and attention than ever before, I think that clearly indicates significance.

There are undeniably going to be voters who will vote along party lines regardless of what either candidate says in the debates or in any other media outlet. However, as more and more Americans are identifying as “independent” or “moderate,” a platform which requires both candidates to meet on an equal level is crucial. While maybe not deciding the votes of these middle-of-the-roaders, the event allows one to tune into issues regarding the election without the yammering of various political pundits – inevitably, that comes afterwards. Although Graber writes about the obvious issues in measuring media influence on viewers and readers,I would love to see even just self-assessments of the impact of the debates in the opinions of the viewers. Regardless, I think that viewers from all party affiliations continue to value this long-established tradition that allows for the presidential candidates to directly address us,the voters.

The debates do not matter. They are, to use Daniel Boorstein’s term, a “pseudo event.” There is no new information presented during the debates. Rather, viewers simply watch a real-time drama of how well, or poorly, the two candidates are able to frame, shape, and highlight the plans they have for America, which they have been delivering speech after speech after speech about for the past six months.

Further rendering the debates both unnecessary, and unnecessarily dramatic, is social media and all of the various mobile devices that we used to stay connected. Worried about truth in advertising? Go to PolitiFact. Or Ad Hawk. Or SuperPacApp. All of the information and fact-checking is right there. And it can all be accessed via Twitter. But so of course, Twitter also offers us instantaneous reviews of the performance as well. Obama was stiff. Romney has a sense of humor. Bird Big just got fired. How does that help me become better informed about their political positions? Am I really to believe that after four years Obama does not have a plan? Should I be shocked that Romney operated with boardroom efficiency?

Beyond performance and personality, what do we really glean from the debates?
Go to their websites. Read their platforms. Cross-check their claims with the facts. Figure out what issues are most important to you and see where the candidates stand on the matter. Find a journalist you trust, and read her watchdog reports.

But, whatever you do, don’t go by what the candidates say in the debate…

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.

When I first heard about the iPad becoming a new staple of apple products, I wondered why this was a necessary machine. So many people already have desktops or laptops or both, and the iPhone had already made it’s way into the hands of many people around the world. The iPhone had everything you needed and it was the size of a pack of gum too! Why would people need that in the size of tablet? I thought this way about the iPad for a while, up until this past summer. I started to changed my opinion when my friend purchased an iPad for school. Actually seeing her use the iPad made it so much more impressive to me. It was so simple for her to use, and she was able to use many apps for school, as well as her own personal use. I was impressed by the impressive visual nature of the tablet, as well as the number of apps which were useful to my friend in her school life, as well as her everyday life.

After being told we would be getting apps for the class, I was pretty excited about this prospect, and now, with a few weeks of experience with the iPad, I feel as though my interaction with the news has become even better. Walter Lippmann, in his piece, “The Nature of News” writes, “All the reporters in the world working all the hours of the day could not witness all the happenings in the world.” However, with the iPad and its many apps, an average person can get pretty close to encountering many news stories of the day. My experience with the news has been greatly enhanced with the Flipboard app. I, like many people I know, enjoy the feeling and organization of newspapers and magazines. Although a completely different feel to it, I do enjoy the organization of Flipboard to be similar to that of a magazine. Not only that, but it also allows for me to follow my favorite news sites and commentators and updates the stories whenever I open the app. It has allowed for such an ease of participation and knowledge of news stories that I feel as though would not have been as easy with a laptop.