That sounds comforting, doesn't it? You must be interested to read 7 Things That Could Go Wrong on Election Day. In case you're curious, this is the main story on TIME magazine's politics page. Well, at least it was when I started writing this blog post.
For some people, the main concern is who to vote for. Some haven't decided if they will vote for Obama, McCain or even a third-party candidate.
This kind of story should be giving people information about the candidates to help them decide who they want to vote for. Or information about where to vote, how to get an absentee ballot. That sort of thing. There's been so much that's been made about the youth vote, and how so many college students are more active with this year's election and a "predicted" record turnout. The story should instruct those who are voting for the first time what to do, how the process works or leading them to information about voting in their respective states.
This year, more than ever, it is so important that Americans VOTE. That needs to be the focus everywhere.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Election coverage vs. Sports Journalism
I'm an avid sports fan. Let me put it another way: I'm a die-hard all-things-Philly-sports fan. So with the Philadelphia Phillies of the World Series, not only did I get the chance to attend Game 3, but sports journalism is probably what I read most these days.
This is all going somewhere, I promise. I want to make a connection here between election coverage and sports coverage. The connection is horserace journalism. Basically, instead of focusing on analyzing players and candidates or issues and team trends, pundits often focus on predictions. Who's going to win? What will be the final score? The funny thing is, I've heard pundits make these predictions and then say, "You know, this is really impossible to predict."
Wow. That's practically breaking news in itself. But seriously, these predictions are senseless. Predictions at the beginning of the primaries that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidential election were absurd. In sports, ESPN has all of their analysts predict who will win the World Series. I'll bet none of them picked the Phils vs. Rays. Then right before the start of the series they all predicted again the winners, and half of them are wrong after three out of a potential seven games have been played.
The media need to focus on what's in front of them. No one knows who America will win the election next Tuesday. No one is sure who will win the World Series even after three games have been played. Media should dig up and analyze facts. Even a donkey can make a prediction.
And just for good measure, this from Jon Stewart is hilarious on the candidates and their sports alliances.
This is all going somewhere, I promise. I want to make a connection here between election coverage and sports coverage. The connection is horserace journalism. Basically, instead of focusing on analyzing players and candidates or issues and team trends, pundits often focus on predictions. Who's going to win? What will be the final score? The funny thing is, I've heard pundits make these predictions and then say, "You know, this is really impossible to predict."
Wow. That's practically breaking news in itself. But seriously, these predictions are senseless. Predictions at the beginning of the primaries that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidential election were absurd. In sports, ESPN has all of their analysts predict who will win the World Series. I'll bet none of them picked the Phils vs. Rays. Then right before the start of the series they all predicted again the winners, and half of them are wrong after three out of a potential seven games have been played.
The media need to focus on what's in front of them. No one knows who America will win the election next Tuesday. No one is sure who will win the World Series even after three games have been played. Media should dig up and analyze facts. Even a donkey can make a prediction.
And just for good measure, this from Jon Stewart is hilarious on the candidates and their sports alliances.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
CJR calls for more
This is journalism.
I'm happy to finally be able to blog about something positive. There's a key line in this article on attack ads called "Double Negative" from the Columbia Journalism Review. It's independent media, while not necessarily at its finest, doing its job at the least.
A group called the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, did a study that analyzed all campaign ads by candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The study placed each ad into one of three categories: positive, negative and contrast. Conclusion of the study: Both campaigns are equally as negative.
But then CJR stepped in and offered a novel idea to too many outlets, which was taking the study a step further. It's hard to blame the study itself. Based on the criteria for categories, the result makes sense. However, it fails to realistically portray the situation and truth. What's worse is the media just eat it up, which the CJR article shows with clear-cut examples.
It's just plain lazy to take a study like this and generalize. But that's what multiple media outlets are doing and CJR has called them out. In a way, that's positive.
I'm happy to finally be able to blog about something positive. There's a key line in this article on attack ads called "Double Negative" from the Columbia Journalism Review. It's independent media, while not necessarily at its finest, doing its job at the least.
A group called the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, did a study that analyzed all campaign ads by candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The study placed each ad into one of three categories: positive, negative and contrast. Conclusion of the study: Both campaigns are equally as negative.
But then CJR stepped in and offered a novel idea to too many outlets, which was taking the study a step further. It's hard to blame the study itself. Based on the criteria for categories, the result makes sense. However, it fails to realistically portray the situation and truth. What's worse is the media just eat it up, which the CJR article shows with clear-cut examples.
It's just plain lazy to take a study like this and generalize. But that's what multiple media outlets are doing and CJR has called them out. In a way, that's positive.
The gaffe is yours, TIME
The headline reads, "The Screwups of Campaign '08."
Granted, it appears to be only a small article, but it actually goes on far more than a couple of paragraphs. The one that I found is titled, "McCain's 'That One' Mess," but you can click "next" and follow a seemingly endless string of others.
Why is a news outlet like "Time" paying any attention to this? Perhaps I should be asking myself the same thing. But my job is to be a media watchdog and point out problems with political coverage.
What might be worse is what lines the righthand side of the page. Underneath a head that says, "A Barrel of Gaffes," there are links to more stories.
Here are a few of them.
"A Brief History of the Flag Lapel Pin"
"Gaffes Can Be Deceiving"
"Ranking the Candidates on MySpace"
I'm not going to provide hyperlinks, because I don't want you to waste your time reading this jibberish. This type of content has no place in real political coverage.
Granted, it appears to be only a small article, but it actually goes on far more than a couple of paragraphs. The one that I found is titled, "McCain's 'That One' Mess," but you can click "next" and follow a seemingly endless string of others.
Why is a news outlet like "Time" paying any attention to this? Perhaps I should be asking myself the same thing. But my job is to be a media watchdog and point out problems with political coverage.
What might be worse is what lines the righthand side of the page. Underneath a head that says, "A Barrel of Gaffes," there are links to more stories.
Here are a few of them.
"A Brief History of the Flag Lapel Pin"
"Gaffes Can Be Deceiving"
"Ranking the Candidates on MySpace"
I'm not going to provide hyperlinks, because I don't want you to waste your time reading this jibberish. This type of content has no place in real political coverage.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
News 10 (Not) Now
I don't have cable TV in my apartment, and one reason is that I can't deal with the way many TV media outlets present the news. As I was flipping through channels just moments ago, I was reminded of that.
I stumbled upon Syracuse's News 10 Now program. Mind you, this was about 12:35 a.m. on a Sunday morning. It's not exactly primetime. Just as I switched the channel onto the program, a graphic came up in front of me that read, "Decision 2008." I thought that maybe I would see a segment that would talk about the issues.
I remained optimistic when the anchor came on talking about how the economy is at the forefront of conversations and speeches as Sens. McCain and Obama campaigned in swing states earlier in the day. But once the story went to footage of the candidates walking up to the podium, smiling for supporters, all hope was lost. The piece may have lasted only 30 seconds altogether. My main problem besides the short length was that we saw the candidates but never heard them. Instead, the anchor continued a voiceover about mindless fluff. Obama said this about McCain and vice versa. Let the candidates speak for themselves!
It's no secret that the amount of speaking time the candidates get in news packages has dwindled. Instead of getting minutes each, on some stations, the candidates now don't even get their voices heard unless the entire speech or debate is broadcast. They may be just repeating what we already know, but I'd rather listen to both of them than listen to some anchor who doesn't even know the issues.
Now I know why I'm watching the MLB playoffs and not the nightly news.
I stumbled upon Syracuse's News 10 Now program. Mind you, this was about 12:35 a.m. on a Sunday morning. It's not exactly primetime. Just as I switched the channel onto the program, a graphic came up in front of me that read, "Decision 2008." I thought that maybe I would see a segment that would talk about the issues.
I remained optimistic when the anchor came on talking about how the economy is at the forefront of conversations and speeches as Sens. McCain and Obama campaigned in swing states earlier in the day. But once the story went to footage of the candidates walking up to the podium, smiling for supporters, all hope was lost. The piece may have lasted only 30 seconds altogether. My main problem besides the short length was that we saw the candidates but never heard them. Instead, the anchor continued a voiceover about mindless fluff. Obama said this about McCain and vice versa. Let the candidates speak for themselves!
It's no secret that the amount of speaking time the candidates get in news packages has dwindled. Instead of getting minutes each, on some stations, the candidates now don't even get their voices heard unless the entire speech or debate is broadcast. They may be just repeating what we already know, but I'd rather listen to both of them than listen to some anchor who doesn't even know the issues.
Now I know why I'm watching the MLB playoffs and not the nightly news.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Worldwide Politics and Journalism
LISTENING TO Matt Mogekwu, chair of Ithaca College's Department of Journalism, and Vadim Isakov, scholar-in-residence at the college, last night was a real wake-up call.
Mogekwu comes from Nigeria, and Isakov from Uzbekistan. Both worked as journalists in their native countries despite the nonexistence of a Freedom of Information Act. They lived in countries where they could ask the most fundamental of questions without getting a straight answer. Mogekwu gave an example. He could ask how many students attend Ithaca College, but he would be denied something so simple.
He said two-thirds of the rest of the world cannot get the information we in America take for granted. Because journalists cannot get the information they need, it's incredibly difficult to hold the government accountable for its actions and words.
Isakov discussed another side of the issue. In Uzbekistan, journalists who criticizes the government immediately put their own lives and the lives of those close to them at risk. He spoke of journalists he knew that had lost their lives in simply doing their jobs. He spoke of writing a story about a woman whose children had been brutally murdered. If he gave the identity of the source, she would have been killed. If not, Isakov would have put one of his loved ones at risk.
How does this relate to the 2008 U.S. election? It's simple. In America, we have incredible power as journalists. We can ask anyone anything we want. It's the power of American journalism, the ability to ask questions. We can hold the government accountable for its actions and policies without risking our own welfare. We can hold candidates for the presidency accountable in debates. But we don't. Instead, we present attack ads instead of analyzing them. We cover the horse race instead of the issues. We briefly mention policies or bury them without discussing them.
We take the power for granted and take the easy way out, choosing balance over accuracy, afraid we might offend somebody. Because of what? Because we might put our families in danger? No. Because of the possibility of hearing some flak from one campaign complaining about unfair coverage.
Let's stop catering to the campaigns and actually do a real service. We owe it to journalists in countries like Nigeria and Uzbekistan who would do anything for the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. They can't come here because they can't afford it. So let's send a message. Let's be critical of our government so that other countries can do the same. It's time for change.
Mogekwu comes from Nigeria, and Isakov from Uzbekistan. Both worked as journalists in their native countries despite the nonexistence of a Freedom of Information Act. They lived in countries where they could ask the most fundamental of questions without getting a straight answer. Mogekwu gave an example. He could ask how many students attend Ithaca College, but he would be denied something so simple.
He said two-thirds of the rest of the world cannot get the information we in America take for granted. Because journalists cannot get the information they need, it's incredibly difficult to hold the government accountable for its actions and words.
Isakov discussed another side of the issue. In Uzbekistan, journalists who criticizes the government immediately put their own lives and the lives of those close to them at risk. He spoke of journalists he knew that had lost their lives in simply doing their jobs. He spoke of writing a story about a woman whose children had been brutally murdered. If he gave the identity of the source, she would have been killed. If not, Isakov would have put one of his loved ones at risk.
How does this relate to the 2008 U.S. election? It's simple. In America, we have incredible power as journalists. We can ask anyone anything we want. It's the power of American journalism, the ability to ask questions. We can hold the government accountable for its actions and policies without risking our own welfare. We can hold candidates for the presidency accountable in debates. But we don't. Instead, we present attack ads instead of analyzing them. We cover the horse race instead of the issues. We briefly mention policies or bury them without discussing them.
We take the power for granted and take the easy way out, choosing balance over accuracy, afraid we might offend somebody. Because of what? Because we might put our families in danger? No. Because of the possibility of hearing some flak from one campaign complaining about unfair coverage.
Let's stop catering to the campaigns and actually do a real service. We owe it to journalists in countries like Nigeria and Uzbekistan who would do anything for the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. They can't come here because they can't afford it. So let's send a message. Let's be critical of our government so that other countries can do the same. It's time for change.
CNN top? stories
IT'S ALWAYS a joy to go to CNN.com and look at the top stories. Despite stories on the plunder of Wall Street, obligatory police beat coverage, the election stories still manage to jump off the page.
I must admit that it's not surprising anymore, simply disappointing. It's like a father talking to his son. "I'm not angry, just disappointed." Because instead of looking forward toward tonight's debate through discussing the issues, journalists are instead as focused in as ever on the horse race.
Here are the three headlines (one of which I somehow missed on first glance) in descending order of prominence ...
- "Debate No. 2 comes as attacks increase"
- "Obama widens lead in national poll"
- "How Palin spoofs could impact election"
I don't even have to waste my time reading the stories. The second headline is pure horse race journalism, covering the race and not the issues. The third is shedding light and giving more attention to something that should probably be ignored. The first actually mentions the debate, but the "as attacks increase" part undermines the possible step forward. It barely makes an effort to report on something meaningful but fails to be the story that asks and answers the critical questions: "What questions should be asked tonight?" "Who will hold the candidates accountable for what they say?"
The debate coverage in general has been a problem. Barack Obama exceeded expectations. Sarah Palin exceeded expectations. We should have no less than the highest expectations for people running for the highest office in the land regardless of their background or experience. What will the media say of Obama tonight? Will they scrutinize him and John McCain as they should? They must.
I must admit that it's not surprising anymore, simply disappointing. It's like a father talking to his son. "I'm not angry, just disappointed." Because instead of looking forward toward tonight's debate through discussing the issues, journalists are instead as focused in as ever on the horse race.
Here are the three headlines (one of which I somehow missed on first glance) in descending order of prominence ...
- "Debate No. 2 comes as attacks increase"
- "Obama widens lead in national poll"
- "How Palin spoofs could impact election"
I don't even have to waste my time reading the stories. The second headline is pure horse race journalism, covering the race and not the issues. The third is shedding light and giving more attention to something that should probably be ignored. The first actually mentions the debate, but the "as attacks increase" part undermines the possible step forward. It barely makes an effort to report on something meaningful but fails to be the story that asks and answers the critical questions: "What questions should be asked tonight?" "Who will hold the candidates accountable for what they say?"
The debate coverage in general has been a problem. Barack Obama exceeded expectations. Sarah Palin exceeded expectations. We should have no less than the highest expectations for people running for the highest office in the land regardless of their background or experience. What will the media say of Obama tonight? Will they scrutinize him and John McCain as they should? They must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)