Journalism and American Democracy

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