Journalism and American Democracy

Please excuse the bad pun or whatever you can call a term like “goodbiPad”, I just can’t resist a good play on words.

Alas, the time has come to bid thee farewell, loveliest iPad.  Although I never named you, I feel as though we knew each other so well.  We shared laughs, memories, stressful moments – even though we’ve only been together for a semester, you came home with me for every single break.  That says something about us, ok?  That meant something!

Admittedly, dear iPad, I did doubt you in the beginning.  You were so new and exciting, but also seemingly frivolous.  I had my macbook and my iPhone, so I doubted that you would bring anything new to my life.  I was locked into my old ways.

But then you opened my eyes to things like Flipboard – customizable, interactive news like I had never experienced.  And what about Storify? With this app, you gave me the tools to express myself in ways I had never known existed!  Together, we navigated the muddy waters of political ads, presidential debates, and campaign spin in this tough election year.  You were instrumental to my discernment during this period of inquiry in which I questioned the political conventions that I had always held.

iPad, this is where I leave you.  Although you have shown me many things, I must send you back from whence you came.  I don’t know that I may ever see the likes of you again, but it was grand while it lasted.

America is founded on the notion that we are a free nation, extending and promoting “Liberty and Justice for All”.  If you grew up in this country, you have known this since the kindergarten days when you place your hand over your heart and pledge allegiance to the flag and the great country for which it stands.

History shows us that “freedom” is a relative term, even in this country which takes so much pride in that ideal.  Those who live here, even today, are not free to be or choose the same things as the privileged, dominant white society of America.  Inequalities still wrench at the edges of the American tapestry, distorting the beauty that could be.

This sounds idealistic, and I don’t mean for it to.  But I do hope to demonstrate the issues that minority groups in this country deal with on a daily basis – exclusion, oppression, racism – I could go on.

According to Pamela Newkirk in “The Minority Press: Pleading Our Own Cause”, minority newspapers arose out of a great need for accurate, fair representation in the public sphere.  The press was, and arguably remains, dominated by white society.  The radical minority newspapers that were born of the Civil War, such as Freedom’s Journal, were just a precursor for modern adaptations of this remaining need for minority representation, such as BET and Telemundo.

The minority newspaper that I examined was the Lawndale News, “Chicagoland’s Largest Hispanic Bilingual Newspaper”, which features articles in columns side-by-side both in English and Spanish.  The newspaper obviously came about where there was a need for it.  Chicago’s Latino population is ever-growing, and at a very fast pace.  The need for minority representation pervades the community, ad this is a viable source for news that covers issues differently than mainstream media.

Although many argue that minority papers serve to further divide minority groups in this country, I believe that until we reach full integration in the mainstream media, the call for minority press will remain.

http://www.lawndalenews.com/

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.

Do the debates matter? Why?

Short answer: Abolutely.

The debates offer candidates the space to showcase their ticket, defend their policies, and ultimately make themselves look better than their opponent. While this is broadcast nationwide, from the overwhelmingly red or blue states to the key swing states just the same, the real audience in mind is the voter whose choice has not been made yet. Just a month away from Election Day, time is ticking away for both Romney and Obama in their fight for the hearts of these on-the-fencers. A point that was clumsily made by Romney, but which both candidates are focusing in on, is that almost all of America’s mind seems to be made up about which vote they will cast. It makes sense to put those voters who are not in your favor on the back burner, because no matter how hard you try, they probably won’t vote for you anyway. Those supporting you going into the debates probably won’t sway either. Instead, focus on those voters, those states, who have not decided yet.

This is exactly what the mindset was last night (and still is) for both candidates. However, the two attacked this challenge in very different manners – and if it was not the approach that differed, the execution certainly did. As a first-time voter who is on the fence myself, it is clear to me which candidate came out on top. Hint: he’s got great hair and loves policy. One of the candidates maintained the upper hand, looked his opponent in the eye, and gave specifics. The other shifted when he spoke, searched for his words a bit too much, and gave the same sort of vague (albeit inspiring) ideals we’ve all heard before. Hint: he’s called the White House home for the past four years.

Many tune out the debates because they reinforce what they already knows out the candidates that they have chosen. The ones who benefit from them most (or at least the ones who should) are on-the-fence voters who will ultimately be the group who decides the outcome of this election. I certainly hope they tuned in last night, and will continue to for the upcoming debates.

​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.

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.