Month: January 2009

24 Hour News

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

James Fallows talks about what he calls the tyranny of technology – the way technology has changed news from having a daily news cycle, where organizations could take time to react and respond to news, to continuous coverage news where the responses and reactions must be nearly pre-planned. The tyranny here, as I interpret it, is that we have lowered the bar for what passes as news and increased the likelyhood of having the wool pulled over the eyes of society through a barrage of information that is no longer meaningful.

What do others think? Has 24-hour instant coverage news improved our access to useful information? Were there benefits to the daily news cycle that we have lost?

Tags media, questions

National

I Call Theme

A link posted on KVNU’s For The People blog leading to this this WSJ article fired off my pattern recognition neurons. From the article:

Whatever the cause, it is a dangerous beginning. Mr. Obama can currently afford to do some accommodating. But if he gets a reputation for getting rolled by the unruly mob, his agenda is kaput.

The article looks amazingly similar to coverage discussed in Breaking the News related to Clinton’s presidency as he took office. Here Obama has not even been inaugurated and the news is already telling us that his presidency is off to a bad start. Come to think of it, they said the same thing about Bush because of the “cloud over his election.”

Tags media, Wall Street Journal

National

FOCA

Post author By David
Post date January 16, 2009
No Comments on FOCA

My sister-in-law suggested that her generally apolitical blog was not the place to engage in a debate on abortion. She’s probably right, but such a debate fits just fine here. In many ways the debate on abortion is settled. An absolute ban on abortion is not likely to ever be a reality in this nation and truly unrestricted access to abortion is also a very low probability. Despite heated rhetoric, the fact is that both sides are entrenched and committed to making incremental gains related tot his ever simmering topic. Camille’s post was specifically about fighting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama told Planned Parenthood he would sign as his first act as President. I think we can be very confident that it will not be his first act (because the economy is his first priority now) but that is no consolation to those who oppose this bill.

As always, I like to start with the actual legislation in question whenever possible. The claim by opponents is that this would eliminate all state and local statutes against any abortion. The text of the bill states:

Congress finds the following:

. . .

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balanced the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the state’s interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is absolute only prior to fetal viability, with the state permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.

. . .

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;

(emphasis added)

Sounds like the claim by the bills opponents is a bit overstated.

Those who support the bill obviously believe that this would remove some state and local restrictions on abortion that are unconstitutional. The problem here is that the Constitution has no position on the issue of abortion. The only restrictions on abortion related legislation are rooted in supreme court opinions. All those state and local regulations that push the boundaries are challenged in court. The language of this bill is so vague that it only reinforces the message that is supposedly set by existing rulings. In other words, all the laws that they expect to remove can already be challenged, and any that would be upheld still could be upheld when challenged.

What this bill really accomplishes is to place in a statute what has already been placed in precedent. Perhaps this is an admission by abortion proponents that the ruling in Roe v Wade is a lousy ruling that amounts to an opinion not grounded in law. Anyone who has actually read Roe can see that it’s a huge logical leap from any law then existing.

My position is that FOCA is meaningless at best and reinforces the most illegal Supreme Court ruling I have ever read at worst. After having actually read the text of FOCA (it’s not very long) if you still want to sign the petition that Camille linked to, please do. I did.

Tags connections, issues, laws, Obama, Supreme Court, unconstitutional

General

Bad Journalistic Habits

James Fallows offers a list of habits in the world of journalism that impede the ability of reporters and news organizations to offer the socially beneficial coverage that they should be publishing. Although he lists 12 habits, they can really be grouped together as follows:

Looking Where the Light Is, Being versus Doing, Measure What Can Be Measured, and Prediction Rather Than Assessment all play well with the journalism as a profit-making venture by maximizing volume for minimal costs. The downside to this is that they all have the effect of serving up less substance for consumers so that they can make educated decisions about the situations they face.

In Over Our Heads, and Amortizing Investments lead toward the aggrandizement of the reporter over the events. As reporters gain name recognition and reputation they often turn to Empowerment by Attitude to compensate for the fact that their celebrity does not translate into any actual authority.

Playing the Game, None of it Really Matters, No Conflict, No News, “The Road to the Final Four”, and Flattening of Events all work in direct contradiction to the perspective that reporting should provide. Rather than helping people to understand what is most important and how various things relate to each other, news items are treated like a flavor of the month (or moment) as if no item in the news had any objective importance. This leads to a cynical and disengaged society. Disengagement fosters breakdown. In other words, not only is this not helpful, it is actually destructive of the fabric of society.

Tags media

General

What Journalism Could Offer

Post author By David
Post date January 14, 2009
2 Comments on What Journalism Could Offer

James Fallows offers a list of benefits that the journalist has the potential to offer consumers. I would like to share his list and see if there anything he left out of the list.

Perspective – reporters and editors are forced to act as a filter when deciding what to investigate and publish out of the endless supply of things that could be investigated and published. (This is the same basic process that the Attorney General has to go through when deciding whether he should be investigating the BCS or the Payday Lending industry.)

Placement in Time – little if any of the news that journalists choose to cover comes without any preceding events. On the other hand, many of those preceding events have gone unnoticed before the newsworthy item registers in the public consciousness. This might also be called “context.”

Similarities and Differences – most news items are not singular events. News has the potential to help us understand how the current event compares to previous similar events. This would allow us to learn what we can from prior experience and also know where we are breaking new ground.

Usefulness – there is a difference between information that is interesting and information that is useful. While there is some value in merely interesting information, that which is simply interesting should not crowd out that which can actually be useful to the news consumer. (News Fluff/Flash covers this idea.)

This seems like a reasonable list of offerings for journalism to tackle as an industry. Getting it right would be a challenge, but a very worthwhile challenge. I would be very interested in supporting a news operation that consistently gave me useful coverage of the things that mattered – rather than simply a datastream about what has been happening. If that coverage offered the placement in time and information on the similarities and differences between the curent event and past events of the same type I would find such an organization indispensible. (In fact I do find such coverage to be indispensible, but I don’t find that coverage from traditional sources.)

Tags communication, insights, media

culture

Journalistic Detachment

Breaking the News opens by sharing an incident from a television panel discussion from 1987. The moderator asked a wounded vet if he would have been willing to torture a prisoner in order to rescue soldiers under his command who had been captured. His answer was that although he would have to live with the consequences of his decision he would be willing to torture his captive to save his men. (Notice that this was him personally inflicting the torture, not simply ordering or signing off on the use of torture.) Other ex-military members of the panel wrestled with related questions and came to various conclusions but in every case their answers addressed the future consequences to themselves and others regarding their choices.

The moderator then asked one of two prominent journalists what he would do if he had been invited by an enemy military unit to visit the site of an atrocity committed by the military forces of his country’s allies and on their way to the site they discovered a unit of allied forces and set an ambush to kill them. His thoughtful answer was that he would probably do what he could to save the allied troops. As he gave his answer the other prominent journalist on the panel criticized him for getting involved in the story rather than just covering the news as it unfolded. Almost more sad than the fact that the two journalists saw things differently was the fact that the first journalist revised his answer to say that his human instinct to aid his allies in a moment of danger was wrong and showed personal weakness. He said, “I chickened out. . . I wish I had made another decision, I would like to have made his decision.” When the second journalist was pressed to address the impact of the position he had taken he responded by saying, “Don’t ask me! I don’t know.”

I value the role that journalists have to postpone judgement as they examine the issues they are reporting on until they are able to process all the available facts, but it is disturbing that this journalistic detachment should extend so far as to demand that the journalist stand as an idle witness to upcoming events when there is an obvious moral choice before them. Later in the book we are told of a journalist who refuses to vote in elections because it would make him biased.

This idea of a journalist acting outside the bounds of humanity in the name of “objectivity” seems to distort what journalism is. I think that attitude helps to perpetuate the myth among reporters that they can be truly without bias. Because of that belief it is all the more difficult for them to recognize their own biases. It seems to me that the logical extension of believing that you have no bias is to believe that anyone who sees an issue differently is wrong and less enlightened than you are. That seems to be a dangerous position for someone who is trying to uncover the truth of a situation or issue.

Tags media, morality, responsibility, war

culture

Breaking the News

I have been learning a lot from Breaking the News and noticing my perspectives on media, politics, politicians, and public debate changing. If I could spend about two uninterrupted days I would love to write a full reaction to the book. As it is I am planning to write a series of posts focusing on different aspects of the subject that the books covers. If anyone wants to get a headstart on me so they can debunk my thoughts (or enhance my understanding) they could prepare themselves by reading chapters 1, 4, and 5 of the book (possibly later chapters will be added to the list).

Also, I realized a flaw this morning in my assumtions to the question I asked yesterday. The assumption were that newspapers disappeared but radio and television remained. If that were the case little if anything would change because NPR (radio) already does as good a job at thoughtful commentary and reporting as most or all of our current newspapers.

Tags book review, media, NPR

culture technology

Devoid of Newspapers

I’m sure that everyone has read a few articles about the shrinking revenue and circulation of newspapers around the country (and the world I suspect). As an example, Real Clear Politics recently asked Is the Demise of Newspapers Preordained? The trends don’t look good, and up until now I have viewed the situation through the lens of "what do newspapers need to do to remain viable?" I don’t meant o suggest that the situation has grown more dire – in fact I don’t think it has changed in any significant way – but today I began to ask myself "what would happen if newspapers disappeared entirely?"

Perhaps part of the thought was a result of Scott’s post that lists control of information as one of the three ingredients to despotism. Of course the demise of newspapers does not mean that there would be no information, nor does it necessarily mean that there would be a central control over the information that is publicly available.

First let me lay out my two assumptions in approaching this question – newspaper companies go bankrupt, in other words this is not simply a case of only publishing online rather than in a phsical paper; other forms of mass communication (radio, tv, internet) do not disappear.

Most directly what I would expect under these assumptions is that journalism would disappear as a paid profession except in whatever form it might be able to survive in unwritten formats (radio and tv). Currently we live in an age where newspapers are not an exclusive source of original written journalism. We have seen cases where the newspapers (and other professional media) get scooped by amatures with blogs and areas of interest. I believe this gives us a glimpse into what a vaccume of printed news would be filled with.

Anyone (such as myself) can publish information in a way that is publicly accessible. Of course very few people know where to find what I write while millions of people know exactly where to find the things that are written by a columnist at the New York Times. Although amatures already publish many times more information (by word count) than journalism professionals there would bea great shift if the vast majority of people received the majority of their information from the handfull of small-circulation sources to which they had been exposed. Also, there is a huge gap between the information that I am able to find, process, and write about while holding down a steady job and the information that can be found and published by someone who gets to spend their time in pursuit of new and important information.. If newspapers were consistently doing that job I would be distraught over the possibility of losing that service in society. As it is, I fear that we have already lost most of the value that newspapers could offer.

So my question is, what effects do other people see if the newspaper industry were to collapse? How would we cope? How obvious would the loss be in the public arena?

Tags media

General

Where Constitutional Rubber Meets the Republican Road

Post author By David
Post date January 9, 2009
2 Comments on Where Constitutional Rubber Meets the Republican Road

Peter Berkowitz makes it sound so easy to come to a consensus on the way forward for the GOP by adhereing to the Constitution. In theory it sounds simple enough to apply the test of whether an idea fits within the framework of the Constitution before deciding whether to adopt the idea. Scott gives a nice analysis of the full article but I think that by looking at the nine ideas that he says should lead the agenda we can get a sense for how hard that concept is to apply in practice – and hence why the GOP lost its way so completely .

An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions.

I’m not convinced that anyone in politics today even knows what a free market is so it’s hard to imagine that the idea of “market-based solutions” would have any consistent meaning from one person to another.

A foreign policy that recognizes America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.

Follow the first vague idea with another. What does it mean to “advance liberty abroad?” If it includes any amount of playing earth-policeman then I don’t think it can fit within the framework of the Constitution. We should stand as a supreme example of a nation protecting the liberty of her citizens but regardless of our knowledge or resources we should not step in with force anywhere that we do not have legal jurisdiction to enforce liberty unless we have been attacked or publicly invited.

A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.

I’m not even sure that sentence said anything actionable.

A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

I’m not sure how this could be construed from the Constitution but it is the right approach to the issue of abortion. Any discussion about the public teaching of any moral issue by the state should be entirely focused on the actual effects it would have on those measurable and commonly held goals. Even the Democrats would generally like to see lower numbers of abortions and higher adoption rates. The question is, do the policies we promote actually achieve those ends – if not they have no business being promoted by the state.

Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.

Like abortion, this idea is not about settling the moral question – it is about making sure that the question is settled according to the prescribed process.

Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.

I like this idea, but I wonder how to formulate and articulate positions that are both pro-immigrant and pro-security.

A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

This should be one of the easiest ideas on this list to pursue among the various conservative groups.

A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

This should also be an easy sell among self-identified conservatives.

The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

It is not only judges that need to understand this. The citizens as a whole need to recognize the difference between Constitutional interpretation and the making of policy

The fact that I am addressing these nine ideas does not mean that I have concluded that Berkowitz was right about which ideas are most important – I only used those to show the complexity that we must still navigate even after committing to that one core principle. The thing that Berkowitz is absolutely right about is that we can and should commit to put the Constitution at the center of our decision making process if the GOP is to have anything to offer to the American public.

Tags connections, Constitution, ideal, parties, Republican

culture

News Fluff/Flash

Apparently the nation is very interested that Obama Predicts a Florida Victory in tonight’s BCS National Championship game – just like we were dying to know whether Obama likes the BCS system. I don’t mean to pick on these stories, but they serve as good examples of some of the thoughts I am having as I read Breaking the News. What our President-elect thinks of collegiate sports is suddenly very important despite the fact that we have no proof the Obama is any more an expert on the subject than I am. Obama is not claiming to be an expert, he’s simply offering an opinion when the question is asked because that’s what any fan would do. This really is not a problem as far as what Obama is doing, but it is indicative of a problem that is widespread through the media – all too often what gets published is fluff even when there are important issues that we should be informed about. In fact, even when the important issues are covered the result is often fluff.

Because everyone knows who Obama is it may intrigue many to know his opinions on college sports just as a matter of curiosity – nothing wrong with that. The problem is when virtually everything gets the same level of treatment, whether it’s his guess on the outcome of tonight’s game or his plan for stimulating the economy and cutting the waste out of the federal government. To a large degree, our press today had tried to reduce important offices, such as the presidency, to something that is much easier to understand and report on – celebrity.

That seems to be indicative of the major problem that is spreading through media (old and new) – there is a tendancy to publish what is easy to cover in order to make sure that something is published. I have am not immune to that urge myself. It is very difficult to maintain any influence in the conversation, or keep the attention of any regular readers, if you cannot have some level of consistency in publishing. (Note that consistency and frequency are not the same thing, although they can influence each other.) Those who write primarily for themselves may take the time to really cover an important subject with some depth. (Those tend to be my favorite kind of articles.) Those who write in any noticable degree for an audience will feel the pull to get anything out, and thus will feel the urge to look for something manageable or dependable – often fluff.

Tags media, New York Times, Obama, thoughts