Tag: media

Carter’s Race Card

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

When I heard the news this morning that Jimmy Carter thinks Obama critics are racist, my initial reaction was to reject the idea. Then I decided that it was only fair to consider the idea before choosing to accept or reject it. First, here is what he said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way. I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude towards minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans – and that racism inclination still exists.

Upon a brief examination I realized that my impulse to reject that idea was based on the fact that the opposition that I have expressed to various actions by the Obama Administration is based on ideological perspective, not race. The weakness of that rejection is the same as the weakness of Carters assertion – it is a hasty generalization because I am no more qualified to know the motivations of other people than Jimmy Carter is (that would be “hardly qualified whatsoever”) and therefore other people can be motivated by racism even when I am not. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that some people are in opposition precisely because of their racist feelings – although I believe the worst offenders will openly admit that fact.

The real question then is not whether racism fuels opposition (anyone who has an anti-black attitude will be in opposition to Obama) but whether racism represents “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition. Here is where I really doubt Mr. Carter – although I admit that where he lives (whether that is “in the South” or “in side his head”) racism being an overwhelming portion is more likely than in other places.

The other half of my reflection was why I was so unhappy with the mere suggestion of racism. Carter would certainly argue that it is because I am a closet racist (doubtless he thinks every white person is). The truth is that I dislike Carters use of racism as a red herring. His comments encourage us to drop the issues that divide us and concentrate on the motivations behind our differences. Of course our motivations can be an important factor in how we deal with differences, but claims of racism almost always cloud the issue in question when they are made rather than clarifying the issue.

Confusion is definitely not in short supply which is why I dislike the charge so much. Thanks Mr. Ex-President – you’ve just done another (dis)service for the country.

Tags current events, discourse, issues, Jimmy Carter, media

culture technology

My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

Post author By David
Post date September 11, 2009
2 Comments on My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

I realized after writing earlier this morning about the way new media is changing the news that my experience was a perfect example of the way that old and new media can interact to augment each other. It also pointed me to one of the key factors that is hurting existing media organizations and thus a possible way to reverse the trend in theory. Unfortunately I am unable to identify a business model that would take advantage of this theoretical key.

Consider the example. A newspaper journalist decides to do a story on the impact of new media on our political system. He interviews someone who has used new media to follow a political campaign in a way that traditional media sources sis not provide. He contacts elected officials and other people connected with government. He contacts a political blogger (me in this case). he takes all the information that he has gathered and using his own experience and his skill in the art of written communication tells a story showing how new media is changing the face of politics and what it means to citizens. He turns the story over to his editors who take that story, assign it a place in the paper, edit it for content and in the interest of meeting size limitations on their physical page trims part of the story – the part that explains what this means to the average reader. It has now become a story without a moral – not because the journalist failed, but because of space limitations.

After that happened I, as a blogger who is not constrained by any physical space limitations in what I write, posted the entire list of questions I was asked as the journalist prepared his story and my full answers. This is the unfiltered data from one source which the journalist used to create his story. One symbiosis between traditional journalism and citizen journalism is that those who are interested in what the journalist wrote could look into the raw questions and answers that produced the story and decide for themselves what more they can learn than the paper was able to publish.

I realized this morning as I reflected upon the process of producing that story from fact gathering to publication that a key factor that is hurting old media organizations is that they are trying so hard to put out the maximum amount of information within their limited physical space that they have sacrificed the moral to virtually every story (that’s easy to do because taking out the moral can also make them feel more objective) and the result is that readership declines (especially paid readership) not because reporters are doing their thinking for them, but because almost all thought is expunged from the final product in the interest of keeping a maximum amount of data.

The theoretical way to reverse that trend would be to use digital media with traditional reporting to again publish the whole story – without space limitations. Those organizations interested in having a physical paper could use the paper as a gateway to the digital content – showing teasers of stories with the full story online and/or only printing the top story or stories in the paper while printing all stories worth printing in the digital version. The digital version could be augmented with complete references and links where possible to the original sources on each article so that readers could dig deeper as they were so inclined. By doing this the organization could even begin to learn in more detail what stories and sources their readers were most interested in and follow up on those with more traditional reporting. This encourages the new media ecosystem which them serves as a valuable tool and resource for the traditional media.

Like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a firm business model for how to support this (how to fund it being a major missing component), but I think I am getting a picture of how these “competing” interests can and should work together.

Tags blogging, insights, media, Press Bloggers

culture Local

How New Media is Changing News

Post author By David
Post date September 11, 2009
No Comments on How New Media is Changing News

Yesterday Holly asked if print media was on its way out. She was quoting from an article by Dave Duffy about the decline of newspapers and the rise of citizen journalism. In it he apparently made this hopeful statement:

I believe that it will lead to the salvation of freedom in America because more people will become better informed about what is really happening in the country.

As a long time blogger that’s a flattering idea, but as someone who has watched many bloggers and much online discussion as a participant and from an academic standpoint I think we need to be careful how much we expect from the impact of citizen journalism. It is an important shift in public discourse, but I think we would be misguided to think that the disappearance of traditional journalism is either necessary or positive. Not long ago I was asked to contribute to an article about the way new media is changing the world of politics. While the reporter did a great job and was kind enough to send me a copy of his story, the paper trimmed the story for publication to meet space requirements and removed all quotes in the article that did not come from elected officials or the person whose experience was meant to illustrate the point. In doing so they removed all reference to what these changes really meant. I’d like to share all the questions I was asked as well as my responses here (which is more than the reporter could have done even if he was so inclined).

What are the benefits of politicians maintaining a blog?

There are many benefits that come from a politician maintaining a blog, both for themselves and for their constituents. The primary benefit is that they can maintain communication with their constituents in a way that they can control (in other words, they are not dependent on space limitations or the biases of an outside news organization). A good blog would enable them to create a firsthand record which they can use to explain or defend themselves from later accusations as opponents may take things out of context and voters often forget the details. (Even the politicians can forget the details without a timely record.)

What are the drawbacks?

The only universal drawback is that it takes time. Also, if the blog allows open responses there is a risk of hecklers and trolls. Not all people are able to deal with those negative elements of such digital communication forums.

How has blogging changed the face of politics for politicians?

I don’t think we really know the full answer to that yet. So far we have been able to see that blogging makes it impossible for anyone (politicians or others) to absolutely control the message that people receive. Blogging makes it so that there are a wider array of information (and misinformation) sources available to everyone so it becomes extremely important to be able to sort through all that information and be able to accurately discard the misinformation. The upside to blogging is that it has very low barriers to entry so politicians can make themselves available as a primary source of information for their constituents more easily than when their only options were media coverage, town hall style meetings, direct mailings, and other less efficient means of communication. Overall I would say that it has had a leveling effect on the political playing field but it also means that it takes even more work to keep on top of the political process.

How has it changed politics for constituents?

See above – there is more information to sort through and constituents must also hone their ability to sort the truth from the garbage, just as their elected officials have the opportunity to become primary sources of information for them they can use blogging to open themselves up as primary sources of information for their elected officials, etc.

I understand you participated in Blogger Press. What do you make of it? What do you see in the future for forums such as this?

I have participated in a couple of blogger press conferences and I think there is great potential there. Bloggers are different from traditional media sources because they do not have the luxury of getting a paycheck for their work. Sometimes this results in better information – often is doesn’t. It virtually always results in a different perspective than is found from professionals in the media industries. I have heard some people argue that bloggers depend on the mainstream media for their information and that they are just acting as a secondary filter. In many cases it’s true, but there are many bloggers who go dig up original information and stories as well. I don’t think that bloggers can or should replace the traditional media, but I do believe that it is very valuable to have the second perspective that bloggers provide alongside the perspectives offered by more traditional news sources. I think there could be a lot of give and take between bloggers and journalists to provide a much richer public discourse than either group could provide alone. I hope to see more blogger press conferences in the future and expect that if that happens we as bloggers, press, politicians, and the public will discover ways that those events can improve our public understanding and dialog around political issues.

My point is that citizen journalism and traditional journalism will best serve society if they complement each other rather than expecting to compete with each other.

Tags blogging, connections, media, Press Bloggers, reactions

culture National technology

I Pledge

With all the uproar over the showing of this video to elementary students I have been asked to weigh in on the video and whether it was appropriate to show it to the students. Of course others will have their own opinions and you are free to view the video yourself and let me know if you agree with me, or why you disagree with me. (I have no doubt that different people will disagree with me for very different reasons.)

Let me say right off that I don’t believe that the video should have been shown to children without informing their parents in advance. Parents are always the primary decision-makers with regard to what their children should be exposed to in matters of values and this video was definitely a matter of values. Having said that, I don’t believe that this was a particularly devious or pernicious video (regardless of what Gayle Ruzika believes).

Some who are opposed to the showing of this video believe that it is an attempt to brainwash the children. I doubt this is the case. The message is actually addressed to the President as a show of support. Distributing it among children was meant to encourage them to pledge to do some good of their own choosing.

If the makers of the video intended children as their audience then they have no idea how to go about it. The fast scrolling words and constant movement at the beginning of the video will fail to get any massage to such an audience. On top of that, the pledges in the video will either make no impression or they will confuse a younger audience. If it is as harmless as I am suggesting why would I object to showing it to children who will be either confused or unaffected by it? Because at best it is a waste of school time. Why should my taxes and my childrens time be spent watching something that has no positive value for their education? At worst showing the video opens the door for teachers to take over a parental role in discussing the various pledges as they try to reduce them to a level that could be understood by a 5 or 7 year-old. Again, why should my taxes support that?

If the target audience was for older youth (teenagers and college students) then the video is well made (meaning it would connect with that audience). It still has the problem of promoting some dangerous biases of the creators (confusing service to the president with respect for the president as one example), but it will always be necessary to compensate for the biases of those who are promoting ideas because the promotion of ideas is a values issue by definition – which again is an area where the parents are always primarily responsible until their children reach adulthood.

So here’s my pledge.

I pledge to continue to believe in the good intentions of others, whether they be elected officials or simply socially and politically active individuals and groups, even when I fundamentally disagree with what they are trying to do. I pledge to be civil no matter how passionately I disagree with anyone and to treat other people with respect and decency in all my interactions. I pledge to fight for what I value and seek to make my country, state, community, and neighborhood a better place. I pledge that no matter how much I may want something I will not make promises that my grandchildren will have to keep in order to achieve it, nor will I ask other to do so.

And I don’t have to go to usaservice.org (which is actually serve.gov) to make or keep that pledge.

Tags civic participation, discourse, media, public service, reactions

National technology

White House Viral Email

The White House has decided to use a viral email (or at least an email they hope will go viral) to spread their health care reform message. In it they offer:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

It think it is important to get a non-spin version of their 24 points (really only 21). I will assume, as much as possible, that their claims are true and show what those claims really mean to the nation. As usual it’s not nearly as straightforward as any partisan claims would have you believe. (For example, they only offer 7 unique ways reform provides security, 7 unique myths – including one I had never heard, and 7 reasons for reform now – plus one generic platitude.)

Tags current events, health care, legislation, media, Obama, reactions

culture

All Things to All People

In a classic case of Federal-sightedness, President Obama is stepping in to mediate an altercation between a black professor and a white police officer. Normally I would be disappointed that the President had nothing better to do but lately I have had more of a mindset where this makes me happy – in fact, I almost wish that we would have more incidents like this to keep Obama too busy to keep prodding Congress to rush through an ill-conceived health care boondoggle (or “blob of legislative goo” if you prefer).

For the sake of variety we might throw in cases of black police officers having altercations with white professors, or inserting other “oppressed” minority groups into the formula so that the President can meet with people from a wide variety of backgrounds – especially those who don’t live in Washington D.C.

Tags discourse, government, media, sarcasm

General

Facts From Honduras

One month after Manuel Zalaya was sent into exile we are hearing very little news on the situation. The crisis in Honduras is still not resolved however and now Roberto Micheletti, the interim President, is expressing his views in the Wall Streett Journal. The views that he shares sound like he is very much on the same page as Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, whose position I covered a couple of weeks ago.

I’m not sure if the story withered from lack of interest or if the facts being cited by the current leadership of Honduras make it hard to continue pushing the version of events that the media seemed to prefer.

Tags Honduras, international, media, Wall Street Journal

culture

News on the Honduran Coup

Post author By David
Post date June 30, 2009
13 Comments on News on the Honduran Coup

When I first heard about the military coup in Honduras I noticed some reference to the extra-constitutional activities of the ousted president and the attempts by their legislative and judicial branches to check his actions. Soon however I noticed a shift in the news coverage as a party line began to develop. First Hugo Chavez was condemning the coup and then others joined the chorus – including the U.S. Soon the news coverage had been dumbed down to exclude any mention of the real reasons for the coup while focusing on the ideal that “there should be no military coups in the modern world.” (That came from an analyst on NPR.)

[quote]I began to wonder what to do or say as I began to feel that we were being misled but feeling powerless to say anything meaningful because I don’t consider myself to have any expertise on Honduras. Thankfully today I stumbled onto a good analysis at NO QUARTER by Larry Johnson. (Warning – there is one instance of Language I Would Never Use™ in the article.)

Johnson reminds readers of the facts of the case:

For starters the ousted President, Zelaya, had become close buddies with Chavez of Venezuela and was pushing to over turn the Honduran Constitution that limited Presidents to one term. This was not your typical military coup. This had the backing of the legislature and the judiciary. But Zelaya is doing a good job of playing the victim.

My first reaction had been that the United States should not get involved but after reading Johnson’s recommendation that the U.S. needs to engage [quote1]I would clarify my position to say that the U.S. should not get involved internally in Honduras, but that we should also make it very clear that expect others (Chavez and cronies) to not meddle internally in Honduras either. The Hondurans started this on their own and should be allowed to finish it on their own. The only way that any other nation should be involved is if the Honduran’s clearly seek that external assistance.

I was impressed with how accurate Johnson’s assessment seemed to be (and it seemed very consistent with the perceptions of some other people I know who have firsthand experience of living in Honduras), but perhaps I should not be surprised considering that he has intelligence experience specifically in Honduras:

I was the Honduran analyst at the CIA from 1986 thru 1989. I also lived in Honduras running a community development in the campo back in 1978.

Tags current events, Honduras, international, media, military, NPR, unconstitutional

National

A Real American Hero

Lost in all the political bickering about the torture memos is are two significant questions. Does torture work? And is it compatible with American values? As an experienced interrogator who worked in Iraq Matthew Alexander has been speaking out on those two questions since at least November of 2008. I consider him a real hero because of his answers to those two questions and also because he is working so hard to advance this crucial debate so that our citizens may understand what is really at stake.

I really liked one quote from a Washington Post interview he did in November 2008:

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war — one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can’t force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I’ll say to them, “Which one?”

By the way, his short answers to those two questions are “Not really” and “Absolutely not!” (My answers have always been “I have no experience with it but I suspect not” and “Absolutely not!”)

Tags Iraq, liberty, media, torture, values

culture National

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate