Study shows media doesn't cover election like public wants- with actual issues

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a study showing that the media has focused ridiculous amounts of coverage (something like 60%) on election tactics, strategies and fund-raising and largely neglecting the issues (15%) even though most Americans, according to a Pew Center poll, say they want more coverage of ideas and content.

It's interesting and I think a reaction to 24 hour news mentality of news organizations. Rather than cover the boring ideas, or even the personalities, of the candidates they focus on the flashy pseudo-opinion style pieces. To me this means that for every ten articles about the election, odds are only 1 and a 1/2 are relevant information to the public. People would have to be very informed, constantly plugged in to news, to be able to learn about all the positions of all the candidates.

The report also shows that the election has focused on 5 main candidates largely neglecting the rest. Obviously they will justify it by popularity but the truth is that candidates like Roon paul have become hugely popular outside the confines of mainstream media so obviously some of what they are saying resonates with people (the irony of this now being that the only time he gets mention is in stories about how popular he is outside the mainstream media).

To me this seems not only to be a matter of bias, but a result of laziness, taking the easy angle. Looking any candidate name up on Google News will leave you with groupings of up to 200 similarly angled stories. Why is it that these appeal to the mainstream media? Aren't there other possibilities for stories? Is it just cheaper to do analysis where you grab a couple quotes and then spout some generic wisdom? I mean, seriously, how many articles must mention John Edwards haircut but don't mention his stance on drug companies or the war? Which is more telling and which is more important?

The "alternative" media has done a better job.

Clinton and Feminists

This week there have been two analysis pieces on Hillary Clinton and her image as a feminist in contrast to the campaign image she has been presenting as a home maker. Such a feminist paper as the Washington Post saw fit to point out her transition, or at least the transition of her rhetoric. There was also an extensive story in the Boston GLobe.

There are important differences in their approaches though. The Globe is more interested in the political face Clinton presents and the political considerations that might backfire or feed into it. The Post deals more with the pop culture side; showings on the view, jokes about weight and hair. The Post uses a feminist art show called Whap to compare Clinton's public persona to what women artists have done earlier. My impression is that this is almost a false comparison. Obviously Clinton is not a performance artist so to compare her to women who appeared in porn as a political statement is ludicrous to say the least. The story also uses more interjections by the author ot make it's point while the Globe quotes experts or participants or Clinton herself. The Globe piece is also at least twice as long. It looks at the perspective of homemakers to see if they buy her "act." It then talks to feminists (an integral part I think). Two pretty different approaches that come to the same end, that Clinton is purposely showing herself as a more traditional "girl" (her words) to undermine right-wing criticism of her as a radical socialist feminist. The Globe is undeniably the more interesting and informative perspective.

Colbert: Peaches in Georgia lack "juiciness" and "truthiness"

Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report (silent t's), is running for President in South Carolina. HIS campaign is sponsored by Doritos and no one, whether left or right, know if he is serious. He's also been campaigning to be named as South Carolina's native son and the Mayor of Columbia just awarded him that title on Sunday. This led to responses from the Edwards campaign who, thankfully, showed a lot restraint and made jokes instead of taking it seriously. The media has really been eating this up. It's given papers like the stodgy Washington Post the opportunity to present jokes (although it's unclear whether they "get" the jokes). This has really been up the alley of Editor and Publisher. They presented a piece today showing the tension between Edwards and Colbert over the designation of "native son." This way they got to present jokes form each side.

It's an interesting experience, the way this has played out. It's like on one hand, the media is so excited to have stories that people are interested in and find amusing, while on the other they kind of resent the manipulation of the media that's going on. The article in the Seattle Times has a little taste of that. It's funny that if Colbert's statements were taken at face-value, you'd have to believe him, but balanced with his profession and past the media assumes it's a joke. Not that I know, but it seems like an interesting tension anyway.

Denouncing CIA watersports

Democrats have been calling on the new nominee for attorney general, Micheal Mukasey, to say that he doesn't support "waterboarding" (which, among other acts, are largely believed to be torture or at the least cruel and unusual punishment). All in all it's got nothing to do with boogie-boarding, which, by the way, democrats also are not really into.
The thing I found interesting about this NY Times article was the choices about what background to provide. There's been a huge amount of debate about this administrations tactics. Do you stick to the political opposition and the facts they cite? Or do you independently bring up NGO's like Amnesty International?

In this case the author, probably smartly, sticks to the political debate that is going on and the criticisms that have been made of the nominee. Maybe for an informed reader this is a good approach, and obviously the NY Times has some pretty informed readers. But would a smaller paper want to have so much dialog, so much Washington-ish in-fighting, maybe not. Or maybe they'd run a sideline summing up the struggle so far. Otherwise it seems like it might be incomplete.

Colbert for President!

Satirist Stephen Colbert announced last week that he would run for president in the South Carolina primary as both a Republican and Democrat. He appeared this morning on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and engaged in a bizarre interview according to the New York Times. Editor and Publisher also covered it, mostly by a transcript. Obviously these publications serve different purposes. IN this case what I'm more interested in is how the media covers this fake campaign.

Russert uses his interview technique of bringing up quotes from the past and comparing them to the present. He treated it like it was real interview, and the Times covered it like one. The media has trouble dealing with a satirist, on one hand not being sure how serious he is, and on the other wanting to include all the jokes he makes. It leads to some very strange mixtures of style, essentially they disembody and decontextualize the jokes, they just come off as strange. I think in this case you'd want to include more context, not really the transcript, but more information, set-up and background.

Black cops in England urge more harassment of black motorists

In England the head of a union of black police officers issued a statement saying that black motorists should be stopped more often and searched for weapons. It's news because this is a reversal of his position. His group had previously criticized the rates with which police stopped people of color in comparison to whites which was 4-to-1. He justified this new position by bringing up concerns in communities of color about rising rates of violence which includes knives. It was covered by the Guardian.

The Guardian is a leftist publication so they emphasize the reversal of position and the reaction of lefty politicians. It doesn't seem like it's really done with any harm, they're not blurring the facts or truth of the case. It's an interesting idea though, coming from American Media who pretend not to have any explicit ideology while endlessly extolling certain virtues of bottom lines. I heard an interview earlier this week where they were asking a journalist about transparency, and he said transparency comes from knowing the origins, until you know the politics and biases of a journalist or paper then they aren't transparent. I remember when I lived in Spain, I appreciated the media more. I knew if I picked up El Pais that I would get a certain emphasis while the conservative paper would give me another. It helps get the whole story I think. Actually, in the American media the Wall Street Journal has been an interesting case, while there's no particularly liberal paper, the Journal is explicitly conservative and no one who disagrees with them will really read them, so they say things the mainstream media wouldn't. Comsky says something like this too.

John Edwards' "affair" rumor given credibility by mainstream media repetition

The National Enquirer reported this week that John Edwards has been having an affair with a former campaign worker. This lead to Edwards denial, which led to the denial being picked up and legitimized by the Los Angeles Times and later, by the AP. The most interesting piece of this story is the sourcing.

The LA Times story is actually on the blog but if news media thinks that different standards apply to blogs, they don't understand that the public doesn't think a "blog" on the LA Times as anything but the LA Times. IN any case it's written like a story and was the initative for the AP picking it up. In this they also quote the AP article so it's perhaps the bigger picture.

Now originally the NE says it has a friend of the woman Edwards allegedly had an affair with. She's anonymous. When the LA Times quotes her, or sums up her statements, they're to a certain degree, giving credibility or at least counting on the credibility of the National Enquirer which is, I thin we know, not a very credible paper.
Secondly, since no one pays attention to the NE why in the world did the Edwards campaign make a statement that would only tarnish them? Well, would it make more sense for them to directly make a statement like this, or to refuse to answer and arouse suspicion? IN the day and age of blogs there's certainly all sorts of rumors floating around, should journalists ask about each one? Should there be some sort of verification process, even before reporting what a supermarket tabloid insinuated?

Somewhere in the ballpark of $25 million...

A retired Hennepin County judge has successfully mediated a compromise between a group of landowners and county officials over the price of real estate for a new Twins stadium. The Twins allegedly kicked-in some amount. Neither they, nor the county, will say how much.

The story was published the Star and Tribune and is essentially the announcement with some quotes and background and very little else: no numbers, no concrete details. In this story I'm interested in the responsibility of the media to find out or somehow finagle these details.

They say that both parties have agreed not to release details until Monday morning, but they also say that the Twins and County will not release how much extra the Twins paid toward the stadium (helping us out). It seems to me that the information that the county won't release, essentially how much the Twins are pulling their own weight, would be a controversial piece of news because of all the disagreement about buying them a stadium. It seems like the responsibility of the journalists to press this point for the sake of transparent government. Maybe this is a whole new story but is there anyone who thinks that the government is NOT being transparent enough who could give us a perspective on this secrecy and, perhaps, hold them slightly accountable. Or is there anyone who has some thoughts about why neither paty (Twins and County) would want to release information? It seems to me, although this might not be the right place, this would be an interesting and relevant story.

Two Responses to that Hack Katherine Kersten

The Star and Tribune employs a right-wing hack named Katherine Kersten to write columns under the pretext of providing "balance" to their oh-so-far-left views.

Kersten has made Critical Mass, the monthly bike protest, one of her favorite punching bags, trying to whip up hysteria so that police will crack down on it. The Star Tribune has happily participated in this debacle, even posting an "informal poll" on their website asking if CM should be "cracked down on"!

So far, I've sent three letters presenting the bicyclists' perspective, instead they publish letters from loudmouths in Edina who threaten bikers and make stupid comments about bikers' self-righteousness (how can some idiot who feels justified to drive a big dumb truck like it's a weapon even begin to talk about being self-righteous?). Anyway, here's her latest installment.

1)
I'd like to thank Katherine Kersten for pointing out that people who participate in Critical Mass have psychological problems. There's so many people who are sick and need our help! I propose that we "crack down" (to use the Star Tribune's own words) on those obviously very ill pedestrians on Nicollet Mall. And then on those children that illegally ride their bikes on sidewalks. Then on people who don't put their grocery carts back. To misquote Eugene Debs: while there is a soul not in prison, I am not free.

2)
Far-right ideologues like Kersten like to give lip-service to less government at the same time as they justify any and all governmental oppression. People like her, who are so quick to whip up hysteria about dissenters of any stripe, are to blame for our slow slip to authoritarianism in the United States under the Bush administration. The fact that her unrelentingly prejudiced attacks have not received any response from other columnists shows the danger her authoritarian ideas pose to free expression and dialog in a democratic society.