I ran across a column last night by one of the columnists at the E-N who has always had a Republican slant. Jonathan Gurwitz slammed Obama's voting record and tried assert that Obama not as bipartisan as McCain. Reviewing the data showed that Gurwitz had only told part of the story. In reality Obama has reached across the aisle more times on key votes than McCain. The record also shows that McCain has the worst voting record in the Senate, even with a shorter campaign schedule than Obama.
However no one in the San Antonio Obama team, namely Alamobama, even responded with some truth. That shocked me and bothered me. For all the action and drive of this group someone has to respond with truth and facts. The opposition has been spewing even more untruths that needed to be countered. I have been trying to but we need more.
If we're going to own this election we have to own it on ALL channels. I challenge netrooters to watch the local papers and push forward the facts. Make sure no column, story, or opinion that does not show the truth go unanswered. We need to get out of the "echo chamber" and get in to the open if we really want to make a difference.
We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
This is an unofficial part of our "Shattering Blogger Stereotypes" series. The myth shattered -- that bloggers hate the traditional media. The following is a report on an extensive study I completed as part of my coursework at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University. -- Phillip
In the early twentieth century, five Russian-born Jews living in Manhattan passed out some leaflets denouncing President Woodrow Wilson. They were accused of violating the Espionage Act. They were arrested for criticizing the government, and ultimately -- in Abrams vs. the United States -- the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the arrests.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his dissent, wrote that the leaflets created no real danger, arguing instead that they embraced one of the central tenants of the constitution: a "marketplace of ideas"
[...] The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
Today, in the early twenty-first century, information consumers seek a free trade of ideas much broader than what the market has traditionally offered. Print and television journalism competes with online journalism, where electronic leaflets travel much farther than the streets of Manhattan. YouTube videos, blogs, and Facebook messages are all relevant players in today’s marketplace of ideas.
Texas’ newspapers are adapting to the new online medium in noticeably different ways, especially when it comes to political reporting. An examination of the nearly 1,000 blog posts featured on the respective political blogs of the Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, and Austin American-Statesman during the month leading up to the Texas primary shows that formal conventions of journalism often do not make their way from the paper pages to the web pages of Texas’ leading newspapers.
For those of us counting on the successful adaptation of Texas’ political reporting in the rapidly expanding realm of web-based media, the loss of formal convention may be a very, very good thing.
Introduction: About the Study
The purpose of the study wasn’t to determine which paper had the best online coverage – it was to examine what kind of coverage is out there in the first place. Reporters from each of these papers were interviewed for the original study; however, their quotes and input will not be directly attributed here, since the original study was conducted for academic purposes and to ensure their anonymity is respected.
The study examined at length the methods and attitudes of three of Texas’ major newspaper political blogs, focusing on the time period after Super Tuesday (February 6) through just before the Texas primary (March 3):
It should be noted that the Chronicle maintains several political blogs, including Texas on the Potomac, which has a national focus. For the purposes of the study, only the posts on Texas Politics, which has a Texas focus, were tracked, since most of the print reporters that cover Texas politics only blog on the Texas Politics blog. The study was completed for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government course, “Press, Politics, and Public Policy,” as taught by Professor Tom Fiedler, former Editor of the Miami Herald. As the general election approaches, similar studies will be conducted for comparison. Finding an Online Voice: The Choice between Formal and Informal Language
In 1961, Theodore White’s book, “The Making of the President: 1960” set the standard for political and campaign reporting. Ever since that time, political journalists have used White’s model – along with the very traditional “who, what, where, when, why, and how” formula – to create and sustain a formal language in their writing. The use of traditional, non-changing formal language signals a context of objectivity and authority for most readers.
However, many of Texas newspapers’ political blogs have abandoned traditional conventions in favor of a much more informal, opinion-based language. As Chart #1 shows below, the more posts that are written on Texas newspapers’ political blogs, the greater the chance that the language used will be informal.
Chart #1: Type of Language Used from 2/6 thru 3/3
Houston Chronicle
Austin American- Statesman
Dallas Morning News
Total / Average
# of total blog posts
172
304
510
986
Formal
61.6%
46.1%
23.3%
43.7%
Informal
25.0%
50.3%
71.2%
48.8%
Mixed
13.4%
3.6%
5.5%
7.5%
For the purposes of the study, formal language is considered “traditional newspaper” writing, often in 3rd-person. Informal language is considered “conversational-style” writing, which may combine first and second-person language and feature humor and/or editorializing. Mixed language-posts consists primarily of formal language but contain editorializing, humor, or a call for reader response not normally found with the use of formal language.
The Dallas Morning News reporters wrote nearly three times as many posts for their blog than their Houston Chronicle counterparts; not surprisingly, their language was much more informal. Strengthening the observed correlation, the Austin American-Statesman finished in the middle of each category.
I am looking for people who would be willing to collaborate with me in an attempt to continue a project very similar to the round-up of gay rights legislative, judicial, and executive bodies on the federal, and state/provincial levels in the US, and even the rest of the world, as very comprehensively done by Bill Myers. You can see one of the latest versions of it available on the web here, courtesy of The Wayback Machine. I could especially use someone to keep track of events in Texas as they happen.
Today's New York Times posted a misleading article that uses the relationship between SEIU President Andy Stern and Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as evidence of a "slowing down" of the Wal-Mart campaigns.
While we cannot speak for Wal-Mart Watch, everyone should know WakeUpWalMart.com has NO intention of letting Wal-Mart off the hook. None. Zero. Zilch.
Every day it seems I receive one of those nasty forwards in my inbox urging me to beware of Obama's Muslim heritage, his anti-American sentiment, or his generally evil intentions. And every day, the part of me that strives to find the truth but struggles to find a source she can trust in this world dies a little inside. (Hear that, mom? Take your finger off of that mouse and walk away from the computer slowly with your hands where I can see them.)
A post on the Politico yesterday addresses one of the most frustrating trends of this presidential election season:
"Ironically, the smear campaign represents the dark side of the Internet's emerging dominance in American politics - a phenomenon that has driven Obama's unparalleled grass-roots and financial campaigns."
Dark side is right. I think it's fine when opponents take stabs at each other. I prefer that they keep it clean, but I understand sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. But where do rumors such as these come from? And why are the recipients of these emails so easily swayed? They throw this 'information' out as if it is fact, when the source of the information is completely unknown!
Equally as frustrating is my inability to find a medium that I can believe in. Where do I go for the straight-forward, unbiased facts, sans agenda?
The hard truth is we can never really know a person's soul. I find it ironic that the anti-Obamans try to convince me to be afraid of Obama based on 'missing information' about who he really is. Who are they? Would the ghost-writers who are wreaking havoc on the American conscious please stand up?
Grading Clinton, MSNBC, and Obama. - listed in alphabetical order.
You may wonder why I included MSNBC to be reviewed in this report. It's quite simple, really. MSNBC is the media outlet responsible for the debate, therefore it is crucial to grade them on their integrity, fairness, and lack of bias. So first, let's look at what the role of journalism should be. This question became pertinent to me when the media came out in response to Hillary's Xerox remark. In all honesty, any of us who have ever had to write a report for school learned what plagiarism is, what is is not, and what the repercussions are. Obama did plagiarize those remarks by not citing them. No "academic" question there. So I looked it up. Each journalist has an ethical responsibility is to fully attribute sources. They can lose their job, get sued, etc. if they don't. So clearly each journalist out there knows what plagiarism is. Instead of ignoring Hillary's remark, instead of evaluating the integrity of it's content, so many in the media at large instead tried to seek out substantively similar content in Hillary's remarks and others, and then challenge her authenticity. They did manage to prove that Hillary agrees with those who have similar beliefs. They did manage to prove that she did not commit plagiarism. But that isn't what they wrote. What they did, instead, was use these common ideas as an opportunity to create a bit more mudslinging. I wouldn't have minded if they ignored her remark; I wouldn't have minded if they reported on it accurately. But for our country's plagiarism experts to pretend not to know what it is in order to submit inflammatory headlines and articles... Well, I decided they will now be included in part of my evaluative process. I am looking to elect the best candidate, not to be emotionally manipulated by my news sources for whatever their agenda may be... which perhaps has more to do with selling than reporting. Selling their product, their candidate, their ratings, their egos... I don't know, but something, clearly. Perhaps they are equally as inflammatory with Obama. Gotcha journalism doesn't service the American people. We are smart, just give us the facts, all of them, and without bias. We can take it from there.
I should note that I was unable to watch the countdown to the debate, and my recording of the debate only included the last 60 seconds before the debate began. I am tempted to evaluate the MSNBC on their closing remarks prior to the debate, but in all fairness, I decided to only evaluate all three parties during the actual debate. MSNBC did make that a challenge for me, I must admit. I also am not watching or checking any media coverage of the debate until I finish writing this. I know that I, too, could be biased by what is out there.
Although I've followed along pretty closely, I tried to prepare as best I could for this debate. -Reading each candidate's criticisms of the other, reading the media coverage, and researching each point through a variety of independent information sources.
So... beginning the recording now. I'll be back with first installment of my own personal report card on the debate. Current standings (listed alphabetically):
(Wow, just stunning. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
The Austin Fire Department has made official what some media outlets -- and BOR -- reported yesterday: the fire that destroyed Austin-based community radio station KOOP's studios over the weekend was intentionally set.
While many of the station's supporters were suspicious of the fire's origin (it started in a new, state-of-the-art studio) and timing (two years to the day after a fire that damaged much of their former studio on Fifth Street - although that fire originated in another part of the building), confirmation that the fire was arson was still discouraging.
But the station will be back, and soon. Plans are already underway to get some programming back up on the air very soon.
KOOP board president Andrew Dickens sent an email, titled "Violence will not stop us" to the station's listserv. It is reprinted after the jump.
We'll keep you posted on KOOP's rebuilding efforts -- and how you can help.
How many times have you heard in the media that America is a conservative country and becoming more conservative every day? It's a claim that has been repeated so often by the media, it's become conventional wisdom. Well, Media Matters for America and the Campaign for America's Future have examined 20 years of independent, nonpartisan polling data to prove that this claim is FALSE.
In our new joint report -- "The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth" -- we disprove the assumption that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative and demonstrate that, in contrast to the conventional wisdom that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative, a majority of Americans agree with progressives on issue after issue and have for decades.
One area we cover in our report is on immigration. Here are some of our key findings:
There is a growing trend in major news outlets focus on the one dimensional horse-race and disregard issues of substance. This was made evident in the reporting on the end of first quarter fundraising for the 2008 Presidential race. Many major news papers chose to report on this topic as if fundraising was the sole indicator of a candidate's ability to win an election or to serve as president. Although money and fundraising is playing an increasingly important role in politics, which is shameful, the media should not neglect to report on other important issues and provide more context.
While major newspapers focus on the money chase and polling, some smaller papers go one step further and add more context to their stories. In response to the end of the first quarter of fundraising the Tampa Tribune had an article titled What to Make of Mega-Campaign Dollars. The article published by the Tampa Tribune ends with the line:
"More than the quarterly totals, voters want to know the ideology and political influence of a candidate's supporters."
This sums up perfectly how smaller media sources do a better job at reporting on the whole story.
