Talk Monkey - Renewing Political Debate

Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC

2008-04-17T21:57:00.005-04:00

This site has been more or less abandoned, sadly. I just felt this clip deserved to be on here. An actual politician commenting on the deplorable state of the debates, something our class had been discussing for months! Check this out. Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC

RIOT VILLAGE

2008-01-25T00:00:00.001-05:00

This site has been re-directed to RIOT VILLAGE.....

If your care about ANYTHING you should check it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blog Paper

2007-12-06T14:26:00.000-05:00

Kathleen O’Connell
Dr. Walker
Dissident Media
30 November 2007

When Professor Walker announced on the very first day of class that we would be producing our very own, class-run blog, I couldn’t help but wonder what I’d gotten myself into. “Blogging?!” I agonized, “the only people that blog are the type that want everyone to know how miserable their lives are.” Needless to say, I was a bit uncertain about just how well I would agree with the blogosphere. I was actually under the impression that blogging was already becoming a thing of the past. Apparently I was quite mistaken. How was I to know that amateur internet news sources and opinion feeds were quietly, and single handedly taking the media world as we know it by storm? Despite my ignorance of and averseness to the rapidly expanding internet news realm, I (cautiously) took on the task of political blogging. And, while I have truly expanded my understanding of the prevalence of worldwide blogging, and learned quite a bit about the presidential candidates for the 2008 elections, I’m hesitant to say that I have completed reformed, if you will, as far as my opinion of blogging goes.

One article, or pair of articles, that particularly influenced my perspective of internet blogging was Steve Outing’s “What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists,” and “What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers.” Outing’s approach was extremely unbiased and served as a well developed introduction to and assessment of modern

media. He offered a variety of interesting thoughts about the pros and cons of new age blogging and traditional journalism. These thoughts inspired and helped me to make my own evaluations of unconventional journalism and to draw conclusions about its future. One thing that I’ve always felt is crucial to good reporting is a good editor. When I catch mistakes or wild claims in print I am quickly annoyed and often find myself wondering if a monkey would have done a better job. On the same token, I think one of the most intriguing things about blogging is the fact that it is so raw – unaffected by the bureaucratic hand of an editor – and is available to anyone and everyone. Free speech in its most literal form! Outing lightly suggests the idea of blog editors by stating, “[it’s] a brilliant idea […] An extra pair of eyes can certainly help to catch spelling, grammar, and factual errors” (Poynter). These types of errors, among other things, are what I dislike most about blogging. Though I have great appreciation for the expressed opinions and their author’s privilege to provide them candidly, I can’t help but cringe every time I see a careless grammatical error or astronomical fact mistake. These kinds of problems should simply not surface if a person is serious about their blog, and I suppose I agree with Outing. For this reason, I remain hopelessly trapped in my indecisiveness about the legitimacy of blogging.

While I found much of what Outing suggested to be valuable, I couldn’t help but disagree with his persistent plea with the bloggers of the world to find ways to “gain credibility.” I think the strongest motivation for bloggers is a personal want to be expressive, opinionated, and free to be these things. A blogger, in my sense of the term, does not seek a large crowd or following – that’s hardly dissident! Rather, I think the bloggers of the world want to say the dangerous things that they dream of reading in the daily paper, and should they obtain some regular readers along the way, then so be it! I think Outing really missed the mark on the motivation factor, and it affected some of his points in a negative way.

Another perspective that I have taken into consideration is that of Rodger Streitmatter. In Voices of Revolution, Streitmatter includes in his chapter “Dissident Voices/Common Threads” an illustration of the fact that “the dissident press is particularly active during periods of social, economic, and political turbulence” (275). He goes on to stress that said forms of dissident publications “tend to be short lived” (276). This notion called to my attention the dire state in which our nation finds itself: economically, socially, internationally, etc. Could this upheaval of amateur, yet passionate internet publications be the result of our nation’s failing society? Yes, it very well could. This thought called me to question the motivation of bloggers everywhere. Will they cease when the war is over? Or after the 2008 elections? Maybe so, maybe not. But since I feel strongly about the fact that much of internet blogging is considerably “dissident,” I am not certain that blogging will remain extremely prevalent once the nation has less to be opposed to.

One thing I found in writing for our class blog, despite the fact that it was somewhat structured, was that it was surprisingly, and exceedingly liberating. There is no denying the appeal, now that I’ve dipped my toes in uncharted waters. Blogging has, without a doubt, tremendous pros including the fact that it serves as a breeding ground for discussion and debate (even if it gets heated, no one gets hurt!), an implement for expression, and it is readily available to all. I cannot suppress my undeniable affection for all forms of media of the dissident persuasion, and thus am finding it difficult to remain in opposition to the blogosphere. While I am still unsure about where I see the blog’s place in media in the long scheme of things, I believe that it is a powerful instrument for revolution in today’s political and social atmosphere and I hope to see it flourish and stir trouble where trouble should be stirred.

For the class blog project, I was a part of the “Political Candidates” team. This involved regular monitoring of candidates’ positions and statements as well as careful tracking of mainstream media’s opinions of said candidates. For my part, I chose to investigate the candidates (as fairly as I could) on a bipartisan level, despite my partiality to the left end of the spectrum. This included writing about such candidates as John Edwards, Ron Paul, and Hilary Clinton, as well as other prominent political figures. I tried to be as critical of both sides as possible – pointing out flaws and shortcomings of every candidate and discussing ideas of improvement. Similarly, my group members did an excellent job of investigating a large range of candidates, scrutinizing all perspectives, and giving kudos where kudos was due. All in all, I think we did a fairly awesome job of touching on a variety of topics in the political world while remaining as unbiased as was possible. I think we stirred a lot of conversation, and isn’t that the point of dissident media?

Works Cited

Outing, Steve, comp. Poynteronline. Vers. What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists.

1995. Poynter University. 27 Nov. 2007 .

Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution: the Dissident Press in America. New York:

Columbia UP, 2001. 275-278.

Blog Paper

2007-12-02T20:26:00.000-05:00

Web-logging, sorry, ‘Blogging’ is rapidly becoming the way our society gets it news, information, and entertainment. Gone are the days when the only time to get the news were during the breakfast newspaper reading or the evening news. Here are the days when the internet has turned every average citizen into a certified news journalist. This new title that all citizens have acquired does not site well with everyone however. Those in the journalism community (and by journalism I mean broadcast and print journalists who have formal training and are paid for their work) have taken issue with the unchecked, free-marketization of the news by bloggers.

Is blogging a form of dissident media? Are bloggers treading on journalistic territory? Should bloggers even be taken seriously?

The simple answer to all of these questions is ‘YES’. Blogging is most certainly a form of dissident media because it circumvents traditional news outlets and brings views, ideas, and opinions to the public on issues that the MSM (mainstream media) would normally stay away from. Nothing is off limits in the blogosphere. Yes, bloggers are impeding on traditional journalism by taking news stories and running with them before the MSM has time to filter it down to a package ready for airing, but this is simply the way our society is heading.

“Many of the most active bloggers are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label ‘journalist,’ associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM; just as many, if not more, consider themselves a new kind of ‘citizen journalist’ dedicated to broader democratization (Skube 2007).”

Blogging is a serious medium that is now beginning to be taken very seriously, mainly because of the stories that are being broken by bloggers that greatly impact society. These ‘citizen journalists’ are breaking stories that would have otherwise been left uncovered.

In February of this year, a blogger broke a story about a young NASA scientist who had been highly publicized for his merits and age as a NASA employee who actually had lied on his resume. This was huge because the MSM had reported that the man did in fact do the things that this blogger found to be untrue (Rosen 2007).

Another blogger uncovered the fact that a member of the White House press core was living a double life as a gay male escort. This White House staff member was later dismissed due to the bloggers efforts (digg.com).

Who is to say that these stories would not have been broken by the MSM in the blogger’s absence? The fact of the matter is there are millions of bloggers and only a fraction of traditional news personnel (or MSM). But what is becoming of the dissident underground blogger movement in the face of such a boom in the blogosphere.

“Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose popular blog Daily Kos has been a force among anti-war activists, cautioned bloggers ‘to avoid the right-wing acronym MSM.’ It implies, after all, that bloggers were on the fringe. To the contrary, he wrote, ‘we are representatives of the mainstream, and the country is embracing what we’re selling.’ (Skube 2007).”

The convergence of traditional news media and blogging is ushering in a new wave of news coverage. Many (if not all) of the local news stations and even some national news stations are allowing/forcing their on-air talents to publish their own blogs in an effort to steal viewer-ship from the online blogging community. Print and broadcast journalism are slowly but surely seeing that bloggers actually bring something to the ‘journalistic table’; mainly “four things: personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge (Welch 2003).”

Overall, the blogging community has created a medium for any and everybody to contribute to the news gathering and information sharing network that is the blogosphere. What was once and some stay still is considered dissident, blogging is creeping its way in the mainstream and will soon be the driving force behind the way the average person gets their information.

Blogging: A Mosaic of Dissident Information

2007-11-30T14:55:00.000-05:00

Alex Manzanares
Friday, November 30, 2007
Dissident Media
Dr. Walker

Let’s do this! At the beginning of my blogging experience I was as enthusiastic as can be – I was watching CNN more frequently, reading about politics on a regular basis, and even subscribed to receive political news alerts via email. I was doing everything I thought was essential to make my blogging experience, well, “blog-worthy,” but I was missing one critical ingredient– passion. When our class embarked on our collaborative mission to Renew Political Debate, we had all the means to make our blog a success – technological resources, large class involvement, even analysis resources such as Google Analytics, yet we came short in truly creating revolutionary change. We lacked the time, technological knowledge and most importantly the passion. Our success, which is arguably debatable, one face remains true –blogs serve as a voice for the dissident minority.
In a brief analysis of the evolving media, Danna Walker, Ph.D. gives “evidence that Big Media are listening, in a development that’s far beyond a business model that converges the way news is delivered” (Walker). We see this all the time; the protest in Burma was able to communicate their cause through cell phone text messages and information rich blogs. Eventually, their cause was so influential that not only did mainstream media take notice, soon, politicians began to realize the importance of this issue. Even the Jena Six protest in Alabama brought dissident issues from a high school to the forefront of national attention through Web 2.0, type-tactics. Facebook groups, notes, images, video and comments were all part of a collaborative online strike against such discrimination. The use of the Internet has provided ordinary citizens the opportunity to become part of the discussion and active participants in sharing information. Yet, one question still remains unanswered, are everyday citizens “true journalists?”
Many have come to disagree. Take a look at Michael Skube, an opinion writer for the Los Angeles Times, he argues that for stories to be considered true forms of journalism, they “demand time, thorough fact-checking and verification, and most of all, perseverance. It’s not something one does as a hobby” (Skube). With my experience, I have come to disagree. If anything, blogging has promoted the most rigorous compilation of fact checking and critics than the mainstream media would ever be capable of presenting. Bloggers have helped bring dissident issues to the forefront, problems and information that are commonly ignored by the “big five.”
Jay Rosen, a New York University professor was able to fight back to Skube’s argument through explicit examples that promote the true journalistic value of blogs. With the help from some friends, Rosen gives examples of journalism developed by bloggers: “Pet-food scandal ignites blogosphere,” “Firedoglake at the Libby trial,” to even “Citizens constructing Katrina timeline”(Rosen). A group of passionate individuals, interested in finding greater information have become one of the most powerful tools in telling our global story. Thankfully, the present digital age provides practically anyone with the potential of becoming a citizen journalist, a participant in the marketplace of ideas.
While I quickly lost interest in the theme of our blog, I plan to use my experience with Internet marketing, blogging and my role as a participant in a dissident issue to begin a new project of communicating such dissident problems. Passion will serve as my critical ingredient, my fuel to promoting an issue that I’m directly affected by and hope to expand to a mainstream issue, similarly to the examples of the Burma protest and the Jena Six.
Mainstream media has, and continues to forget an important issue that has affected this country for the past two decades. In advent of the AIDS crisis, the lack of scientific evidence, ignorance and stereotypes have fostered a breeding ground that continues to plague a movement for equality. With extensive amounts of research, personal investment on this topic and the potential for saving millions of lives, I hope to present a life-saving strategy to the Food & Drug Administration. In 1973, the Food & Drug Administration imposed a lifetime blood donation ban on men who have sex with men and their partners (FDA). After years of being refused to donate blood, I have become inspired to launch a site that will serve an active role in showcasing this dissident issue. My personal experience as a blogger has helped me understand the immense power of blogging, the means in which statistics are compiled together, how facts are repeatedly checked and most importantly the power of passion to create revolutionary change. While there are numerous companies that scientifically and medically refute this ban, a blog movement similar to the one in this class, can rapidly and effectively showcase an issue on the national agenda, a goal I hope to accomplish as a blogger.

References

"FDA Policy on Blood Donations From Men Who Have Sex with Other Men." Food & Drug Administration. 23 May 2007. 27 Nov. 2007 .

Rosen, Jay. "The Journalism That Bloggers Actually Do." Los Angeles Times 22 Aug. 2007. .

Skube, Michael. "Blogs: All the Noise That Fits." Los Angeles Times 19 Aug. 2007. .

Walker, Danna. "Stunning Media Changes in 2006 Have College Journalism Educators' Heads Spinning." Public Eye 4 Jan. 2007.
.

Final Blog Paper

2007-11-30T13:21:00.000-05:00

“I would define a journalist as someone who brings news to the public,” said Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who represented Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger who spent more than six months in prison for refusing to turn a videotape of a protest he filmed over to the courts (1). Garbus’s description of what makes a journalist is an accurate one, and he was advocating that his client was one. However, after a semester of contributing to and immersing myself in the blog world, I realize that this description does not necessarily apply to blogging and bloggers themselves, as much as they might like it to. Blogging has the potential to be journalism, and when it is done at its finest, it is. Much of what I have seen and done in blogging is not journalism. Blogging is however a pervasive and effective form of dissident media, one that works against hegemony and improves the dissemination of information that Stephen Brookfield, in his essay on critical theory, says is essential for an adult population to truly “practice democracy.” (2)
What stood out in the Dissident Media class blog “Renewing Political Debate” was not, for the most part, journalism, but rather analysis, opinion, and taking existing news from established media sources and compiling it in a useful way. The blogging that took place was indeed a valuable form of the practice. Even if the information was gathered primarily from existing sources, which does not “contest hegemony” as Brookfield says, the analysis and debate among the bloggers that resulted from the information, does.
As I mentioned earlier, when blogging is practiced at its finest, it is journalism. The political blog “The Washington Note” is a source for news and analysis which utilizes the immediacy and personality of blogging and combines that with original reporting and the ethic of accuracy that professional journalists carry. When blogging reaches this high plain I believe that it outmatches other traditional forms of reporting news due to its immediacy.
Good examples of this that occurred over the semester were the live blogging that was done in the classroom when the guest speaker, Newt Gingrich’s press aide, talked about the ongoing effort to renew political debate. Another was the “long blog post” assignment, which required original reporting. In these two instances the full potential of blogging, not only as a dissident media, but as a form of effective journalism, was realized.
There is no question as to blogging’s effectiveness as a dissident media. The way it allows for information to be spread, instantly shared, analyzed, and debated confirms this. In some ways it mirrors the way in which which dissident publications throughout America’s history dealt with ridicule from the mainstream press. Blogging is embraced by many in the mainstream journalism community, but there are also many who view it with extreme skepticism, such as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Skube. “Bloggers have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations,” he writes in his article “Blogs: All The Noise That Fits.” Through working with blogs this semester it is clear to me that they are an invaluable part of today’s dissident media, but at the same time I can’t help but feel some of the skepticism and worry that Skube does. (4)
Many of the specific points about blogging that cause me to feel this way are highlighted in the articles written by Steve Outing about what bloggers and journalists can learn from each other. Outing is right in that the two sides do have room to learn from each other, and need to. However, I feel that bloggers need to take advice from journalism more desperately if their craft is going to develop and maintain the trust of readers. Outing writes: “with so many new people involved in blogging, most of them having no training in journalism practices, ethics, and media law, personal legal liability is a big deal...In the years ahead, I expect to see some solo bloggers get in trouble.” This is a major issue, especially in a blogging world that is highly opinionated and is often quick to make accusations without doing the proper journalistic “legwork.” By that I mean talking to multiple sources, fact-checking, and so on. “Here’s something you frequently see with bloggers that trained journalists usually avoid: Making accusations or strong criticisms without asking the target for reaction,” says Outing (3). It wouldn’t take too many high-profile libel cases of bloggers to put blogging’s reliability and usefulness into question with American readers. I’m well aware that some in the blogging community do practice their craft with journalism’s ethical and accuracy standards, and if there were embraced fully by the blogging world as a whole, than it would be stronger for it.
As stated before, blogging is dissident media’s newest and currently most effective outlet. It successfully contests the hegemony that mainstream journalism tends to enforce, and when blogging is performed at its finest level, it surpasses mainstream modes of journalism with its combination of solid reporting and instant accessibility. Blogging is still, through my experience, a new form of media which still has a lot of growing to do, and responsibility to accept. If the blog world can keep its creativity and accessibility while adopting more of the ethics of professional journalism, it will be not only an excellent form of dissident media, but the primary news and reporting form as well.

Blog Paper

2007-11-30T12:11:00.000-05:00

Blog Paper
Blogging, a free way of expressing ones opinion to others indirectly and without the pressure of facing the people you’re talking to. From what I’ve heard from others on the subject on blogging, those that like to blog feel that it’s a great way to release frustrations or a pressure-less form of communication. Those who are not so fond of blogging think bloggers are a “bunch of pussies that complain about their pathetic lives online because they have no friends.” I feel that this sources’ name is unimportant, no matter how ignorant they may be.
The way that a lot of people view blogging is as an excessive form of writing that just isn’t necessary as people are paid to write opinion pieces in newspapers. However, this is not the case. Blogging is a personal form of writing in which anyone from anywhere can partake. The most important thing I feel to learn about blogging is to “let go of the idea that you must have everything nailed down, organized, and edited before you publish” as Amy Gahran puts it. Gahran also states “A blog post is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a writing assignment you must prep for and deliver as a finished package.” Blogging is (as I keep saying) a completely personal writing. The most enjoyable part of the blog project was the fact that I did not have to be grammatically correct all the time, and I could put videos in my writing, I could effectively do anything. The freedom that blogging gives its authors is possibly the most rewarding feeling any amateur writer can receive.
However, as much freedom as blogging gives its authors, there are some very important ethical issues and rules. As Steve Outing puts it, “Blogging isn't just a Wild-West free-for-all of publishing with no rules or ethical guidelines.” One issue that is vital to the improvement of blogging in the future is the accuracy of facts. Outing points out that “Some bloggers are too quick to publish anything that falls into their laps -- without bothering to vet the material to determine if it's accurate, or to consider the consequences of publishing it.” Some of the consequences of which Outing speaks contain libel suits. As blogging offers such freedom in speech, emotions often come into play and through those emotions, malicious statements can be formed. However, no matter how emotional a writer maybe about his subject, all facts must be checked as blogs are published and available to the public eye.
One thing a lot of bloggers do not realize is that they are non-professional journalists and that their writing is ready available on the internet just the same as professional journalists articles are. In a democratic society, it is perfectly fine and expected that information is available to the public but as Outing says “This line of thinking suggests that the publisher's responsibility lies in being clear about what's been confirmed and what hasn't been, acknowledging that the information, depending on circumstances, could be accurate or could be groundless.” A blogger can not take any information they hear from a friend and put it straight up on their blog, as this information must be checked for sources and the sources must be credited. For instance, although in a very light-hearted sense, I wrote a post about how attractive Barack Obama is. I heard through a friend that a lot of women found Barack Obama very attractive. So I checked the statement online, and sure enough I found information about women stating publicly that they thought Obama was attractive even “sexy.” Although this is a very-light hearted example, it is important that all bloggers double check their sources.
In conclusion, the most important things that blogging can teach anyone is that blogging is truly a freedom of expression in every sense of the word, and with that freedom comes responsibility to respect its ethical boundaries and legal confines.

Why, sometimes, bloggers need to shut up

2007-11-30T11:12:00.000-05:00

Much has been said in recent years about the emergence of the blog. Supposedly, this new form of media can transform the structure of media power, bringing people and news sources close together. Anyone can write a blog and publish it for the world to see, from traditional reporters to politicians to soccer moms to their teenaged children. This accessibility has been said to expand the political and social discourse, closing the gap between the news makers and the news consumers and turning every citizen into a rogue journalist.

However, critics claim that bloggers are an insult to the craft of journalism. They see the “blogosphere” as rife with errors and unsupported opinions, a symptom of bloggings definitive lack of editors or gatekeepers. (Skube) Other bloggers and blog-readers fact-check the sites, which can lead to impressive results. (Welch) But the criticism of the blogosphere, or at least parts of it, as petty and argumentative cannot be denied. Skube asserts that “the blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.” (Skube)

The problem with blogs is not that they are inaccurate; when a blogger makes an error, he or she typically corrects it as soon as a commenter points it out. The problem with blogs is not that they are devoid of investigative, hard journalism; Jay Rosen provides a list of important blogging accomplishments in “The journalism that bloggers actually do.” (Rosen) The problem with blogs is their pompous, egotistical nature that springs from a hatred of and unwillingness to work with and attempt to improve the mainstream media.

While the upper echelon of bloggers, the bloggers who uncover important stories that the MSM misses, offer an important contribution to the media landscape, it is often the lesser bloggers, the columnists, the political commentarians, who tout the possibly overestimated transformative power the blogosphere. “As a rule of thumb, the more disgruntled a blog is, the more vehemently it proclaims its status as the media of the future.” (Tossell)

Blogs such as these increase partisanship instead of seeking actual solutions. Tossell says that it is the partisan political blogs that are quickest to remind their readers that they are outside the filters of mainstream media. But what is it that these readers, made so aware of the alternative nature of the blogs they are reading, really want? Blogs are hurting themselves by building up their own importance. In the end, readers want the same thing from a blog that they want from a newspaper or the evening news: a story. (Tossell)

Bloggers, however, do not talk in terms of stories. Blogging has become not a way to tell a story, not a new medium, but a whole new structure in and of itself. It attempts to define itself as separate from the media, while trying to become the media. “Anyone who thinks that blogs merely enhance and compliment the media world, apparently, just doesn't get it.” (Tossell)

So how can blogs grow and improve, as they certainly have the potential to do? While the blog is still young, only a decade old by some estimates, it is headed down a bad road. By defining themselves as oppositional to the mainstream media and as the new media, bloggers are creating a conflict of interest. If blogging eventually dominates more traditional forms of media, it will become the standard. While mainstream media has its flaws (it can be slow to fact-check, reluctant to correct mistakes prominently and unsure about questioning authority by going deeper; Outing), bloggers are doing themselves a disservice by focusing on their revolutionary position instead of shutting up and doing more of the work they claim they do.

Even the blogs that do work hard to report the news and provide expert commentary are given a bad name by the partisan, mud-slinging, self-important blogs. These blogs waste time fighting with other bloggers and engaging in immature fights, often to the exasperation of readers. Thanks to these bloggers, the very word “blog” has become a loaded word, evoking images of egoists whining away about the latest news item. “The sooner that blogging triumphalism is history, the sooner "blog" will stop being an unfairly loaded word.” (Tossell)

Of course, making such generalizations about the blogosphere is impossible; it is not one cohesive movements and there is no specific trait all bloggers have in common other than the belief that they are somehow contributing to the public body of knowledge.

Perhaps this argument could be refuted by pointing out a few humble, dedicated blogger-reporters; however, that is not the point. Bloggers need to realize that while they are working in a new medium, they are not working in a new world.

Works Cited

Skube, Michael. “Blogs: All the noise that fits.” The Los Angeles Times 19 August 2007.

Welch, Matt. “Blogworld and its gravity.” Columbia Journalism Review Sept/Oct 2003: 20-26.

Rosen, Jay. “The Journalism that Bloggers Actually Do.” The Los Angeles Times 22 August 2007.

Tossell, Ivor. “It’s not the blogs I hate, it’s their fans.” The Globe and Mail 20 July 2007.

Outing, Steve. “What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers.” Poynter Online 20 December 2004.

A Blogging World

2007-11-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

Joe Layman
Comm. 275
Professor Walker
November 30, 2007

Throughout the course of history there has not been a more effective way to organize people than through the Internet. People can see results within seconds after sending an e-mail, researching a topic, or posting a blog. The speed and efficiency in which this can be done has many people questioning the consequences. However, for dissident press fanatics the Internet has become a sanctuary. Advocacy groups and especially bloggers are using the Internet as a place to get their message out. Once separated by hundreds of miles people who share a common interest are now connected. This capability has made blogging the most powerful and influential form of dissident press.

Many factors contribute to this growing trend. The most important element that has propelled blogging to the top of the dissident world is its availability. “Blogging technology has, for the first time, given the average Jane the ability to write, edit, design, and publish her own editorial product” (Welch). Unlike the dissident press of the 1800s and most of the 1900s, anyone can submit an article. Since authors hide behind users names they do not have to be afraid of posting a controversial statement or going against mainstream thought. However, some people may argue that because posts can be submitted anonymously it does not allow the blogger to be responsible for his or her comment.

Other general criticisms include the notion that most comments are not serious and that the authors do not cite reasons or examples to support their argument. While some of this may be true, I believe, at the core, bloggers are writing to start a conversation. They want their readers to start questioning and thinking about the world around them. Blogging allows the average person to contribute who would otherwise not have written a letter to the editor. It also allows people to be updated by the minute instead of waiting for the paper in the morning. The fact that people can blog at work or in school contributes to a constant flow of information. Thus it is becoming more difficult for a “news organization to sit on a big story and publish it at a set time” (Outing). This development is an example of the emerging role of blogging as a dissident media source.

Along with their emerging role is the question of whether or not bloggers are true journalist. Dissent press has evolved to an easy and inexpensive practice. Stories can be posted within minutes of an incident. Again, I believe this is good and begins the conversation. In this “on the go” society people are searching for quick news stories and bloggers are providing them. However, others can say that bloggers do not conduct the real investigation and thus are not presenting the whole story. Michael Skube of the Los Angels Times is among the group that believes bloggers only skim the surface of their stories. As he said in an August 17th article, “the disgrace at Walter Reed, true enough, was first mentioned in a blog, but the full scope of that story could not have been undertaken by a blogger” (Skube). I disagree. While Skube tries to discredit bloggers, I think that bloggers help expose stories that national newspapers or news networks would have ignored.

A story that was not covered and finally established blogging as an important form of journalism was the threat America faced from terrorist prior to September 11th. The attacks “created a huge appetite on the part of the public to be part of The Conversation,” thus propelling blogging into forefront” (Welch). Now, people take it upon themselves to question authority. With everyone contributing, dissident press has grown dramatically in the last six years. Yet, some people still question its credibility.

If this class has taught me anything it is that a single voice is powerful enough to bring about change. Voices such as Ida B. Wells, William Lloyd Garrison, and Huey P. Newton were the leaders of dissident press decades ago. Like real journalist of their time they investigated stories, used eye-witness accounts, and tried to discover the truth. Ironically, these tactics are used by bloggers today. In fact, “the only real between what they do and the work of professionals journalists is that most bloggers lack the credentials to gain access to sources as easily as their journalist cousins” (Outing). Serious bloggers do not let that stand in their way and that is why I believe their role in dissident press is just as valuable as a trained journalist.
Bloggers are not only important to journalism, but also society because of the stories that they uncover. Without them Walter Reed, the Hurricane Katrina timeline, and especially our blog topic, debate reform, would not be as popular. Their ability to start a conversation and have other people correct or strength their argument is an art not found in many other places. I also believe that because bloggers do not let the people or organizations they are criticizing defend themselves, blogging is appealing to many people who are not interested in professional technicalities. Consequently bloggers are controversial.

People argue that because bloggers do not ask for a response from the other side, they are unfair and biased. However, bloggers, and especially dissident journalist, are not supposed to give equal time to both views. In the 1830s Ida B. Wells did not allow pro-lynching articles to appear in her newspaper. Dissidents try to persuade. So, just because one type of journalist cannot do it, does not mean another should not be allowed. This is also applies to the use of unconventional writing. Bloggers may not have the most crisp or grammatically correct sentences, but this does not ruin the validity of their statement.

While blogging for the class project I found the conditions of blogging to be very relaxing. This is another reason why the bloggers role is expanding in the dissident media world. People feel comfortable writing nonstop for twenty minutes then publishing their articles with no questions asked. Bloggers are free to write about any topics that interest them. Because the rules are hard to outline I believe bloggers have an advantage over traditional journalist. Therefore blogs in the form of entertainment and dissident media will continue to grow and become even more popular.

Without waiting to confirm the facts, bloggers force news stories to the front page. They create a conversation that may motivate people to take action. Posting blogs once a week about a certain issue made me feel that I was doing something good. I felt involved and made it my responsibility to make the reader feel the same way. If our articles were in a newspaper not as many people would have read them and they definitely would not have received hits from all around the world. The idea that someone in Europe could have read my articles is exciting. It appears that although bloggings influence is immeasurable it can only continue to grow.

The Marriage of Activism and Blogging

2007-11-30T11:06:00.000-05:00

The use of blogging as dissident media has the capacity to be a powerful force within activist movements and an incredibly useful tool in raising awareness and recruiting other like-minded people to one’s cause. In this paper I describe why I think activists should embrace blogging and why they are especially suited to it.
Blogging certainly has the capacity to be a form of dissident media, but the Talkmonkey blog that our class maintained was not truly dissident media. As Streitmatter defines it, “in order for a publication to merit the mantle of ‘dissident’ it not only had to offer a differing view of society but also had to seek to change society in some discernable way...The publication’s primary purpose must have been, in short, to effect social change” (Streitmatter, xi). As I view it, our blog did not champion social change at all. It focused on the 2008 presidential election and generally stayed within the two-party dichotomy of our political system.
Although I do not think our blog was a form of dissident media, I do think that blogging has the best capacity out of any other media source to be used as a tool for social change. This is for several reasons. First, activists are more knowledgeable than the general population about a wide array of issues. It is first our responsibility to educate ourselves around an issue, accomplished through talking with our friends and other activists, gathering information online, reading zines, and examining the issues from a mainstream as well as radical perspective. We don’t view this as academic or forced because it is motivated by our passion for justice. One must learn before one can teach others.
Second, groups and individuals are always looking to raise awareness about the causes they’re passionate about. This mindset lends itself very well to blogging. They can create a blog, for free, that enables more people to become exposed to the injustices in the system and learn strategies for creating change.
Third, activists in general are not afraid to speak their minds. They denounce government repression, corporate domination of culture, and fight for every oppressed person and animal around the world. Since we spend so much time speaking about these issues within our communities and in the outside environment as well, it is only natural that we take our arguments and post them in a blog for people to read on a national scale. It would strengthen and increase the influence we are able to have, thereby helping our causes. Since other activists would probably be our target audience, I think that some good debate could ensue in the comments between those who disagree on tactics or approaches to change. I would have loved for our site to be more interactive and feature “news as a conversation” which the Poynter article talked about.
Fourth, activists are always on the lookout for reliable and quality news sources not owned and exploited by the corporate media. We are wary of speaking to mainstream media about our planned actions because we are afraid of the way they will portray us and pigeonhole us. Yet a blogger who is unapologetically more progressive and less corporate is less intimidating and activists would feel more comfortable being interviewed by them. A well-maintained blog with a wide or specific focus that is operated by a collective of like-minded radicals will appeal to those who are tired of the same opinions from every mainstream media source.
The experience of posting my writing on the internet drew mixed emotions. At first I was really nervous about the whole class and many potential strangers reading what I had to say. Before my first blog post I was scared that I would have nothing to write about or that what I did have to say would sound stupid. However, once that first post was done all the nervousness and pressure seemed to melt away. I often discuss my views on various issues with friends and this helped me to overcome what lingering shyness existed within me to make the weekly blog posts. I feel that this class has given me the confidence to possibly start my own blog in the near future. I have definitely been reading others’ blogs much more due to this experience as well.
What I accomplished from posting on the blog was mostly gaining confidence in my blogging ability and writing. I wish I had not been so confined in what to post about, but I know that parameters are necessary for cohesion and structure. I actually really enjoyed posting about Radical Cheerleading, one of my passions. I got to include cheers and pictures of our squad, which was fun. One of the most valuable things I have gained from this class and our blogging experience is a deeper knowledge of critical theory. I plan to use elements of that approach in activist work in the future.

Sources:
Outing, Steve. “What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers.” Poynter Online. 20 December, 2004.
Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America. New York: Columbia, 2001.

Dissident Media: The Blog?

2007-11-30T11:03:00.000-05:00

Lara Aqel Dissident Media
29 November 2007 COMM-275-001

Dissident Media: The Blog?

Introduction

More than halfway through the first decade of the twenty-first century, no source of media is producing quite as much ‘buzz’ as the blog. The term ‘blog’ is a portmanteau of the words web log, while the oft-used ‘blogosphere’ refers to all blogs and their interconnections. The advancement of the blogosphere can be traced back to the onset of the Internet. The concept of blogging, that everyone can share opinions, facts, or fiction with a potentially receptive and interactive e-audience, puts power in the hands of every interested Internet user on Earth. These users are embracing this power with enthusiasm. Just how big a phenomenon is blogging? Today, the blogosphere is doubling in size every 6 or so months (Sifry). According to Technorati’s chief executive David Sifry, fifty million blogs had been tracked as of July 31st, 2006, and approximately 175,000 new blogs are being created each day. That translates into about two new blogs for every second of the day (Sifry). Logically, this all means a new face of media the likes of which has never been seen before. One question remains however: is blogging likewise the new face of dissident media?

“Dissident”

Streitmatter believes that for something to deserve the title of dissident, it has to both “offer a differing view of society” and “champion a particular cause” (xi). If this is to be the accepted definition of what and what does not constitute dissident media, then the answer to the aforementioned questions is merely maybe, or better yet, it depends. As previously noted, there are tens of million of blogs in existence, each of which offers a different (i.e. personal) “view of society.” Furthermore, some blogs even champion causes: there are leftist blogs and conservative ones, human rights blogs, and animal rights too. The list goes on. Thus, while blogs as a whole cannot be considered, with confidence, dissident, some certainly can.
Nevertheless, the Streitmatter definition is not the only one. Therefore, others must be considered to determine whether blogging is or is not dissident media in new stripes. More common definitions of “dissident” include differing from the mainstream, and departing from established and accepted belief or standards (Define.com). In this sense, blogs as a whole can be considered dissident media. This is so by virtue of the fact that blogging is a new medium, an unconventional and neoteric one. It often looks down on mainstream media and mainstream media returns the favor. It re-writes all the rules in terms of what can suitably constitute and editorial product. As Michael Skube aptly pointed out, bloggers today “have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations.” Blogging is dissident media here because it is an alternative media.

Journalism?

The problem with the above definition, some might argue, is that it proves that blogs are dissident, but not that they are dissident media. This indeed is a point of contention in the public discourse surrounding the blogosphere. To label something as dissident media, one affords it the presumption of journalistic undertaking. Blogging’s critics assert that it is not journalism. Consequently, if blogging is not journalism, then it makes no sense to consider it dissident journalism.
Matt Welch is not so quick to write bloggers off. He states that they contribute “personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge” (24). Steve Outing even goes so far as to proclaim that ‘real’ journalists can learn a few things from bloggers. Some of the most prominent of these are to allow news to be a two-way “conversation” with their readers, to account for mistakes more readily and graciously, and to let themselves get “personal” with their writing every now and then.

Dissident AND Mainstream?

Furthermore, Outing also imparts what bloggers can learn from journalists, and points out a phenomenon that has heretofore passed under the radar; journalists and bloggers are working together in more ways than one. For one, mainstream media has opened its doors to the blogging world; the New York Times’ blog numbers among the most read. In return, “citizen journalists” are placing new emphasis on factual reporting. Most notably, journalists and bloggers are sharing information and sources. He remarks that almost “all journalists traffic privately in gossip, anonymous sources, and thinly veiled juicy items -- they just don't usually get to throw those things into print, and so they IM these tidbits to us bloggers. Bloggers are really just the id of the journalism world."
All this reciprocated interaction sheds light on one last point. With all the ruckus that blogging is causing in the public sphere, and the near-ubiquity of bloggers in the world today, can it be considered anything but mainstream? If it is mainstream, it cannot also be dissident- at least not according to established understandings of the term.

Conclusion

Is blogging a form of dissident media? That is demonstrably a question of definitions, and perhaps also a demonstration that established definitions are inadequate. Regardless, bloggers are a voice (correction: many) to be reckoned with in today’s world, and they do not plan on departing the blogosphere in any e-ra soon.

Outing, Steve. "What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists." Poynter Online. 23 Dec. 2004. 30 Nov. 2007 .
Sifry, David. “State of the Blogosphere.” Sifry's Alerts. 7 Aug. 2006. 28 Nov. 2007 .
Skube, Michael. “Blogs: All the noise that fits.” LATimes.com. 19 August 2007. 29 November Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution. New York City: Columbia UP, 2001.
2007.
“Dissident.” Define.com. 29 November 2007.
Welch, Matt. "Blogworld and It’s Gravity: The New Amateur Journalists Weigh In." September/October 2003.
Vargas, Jose A. "Storming the News Gatekeepers." Washington Post 27 Nov. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007 .

Oops, sources.

2007-11-30T10:43:00.000-05:00

Kurtz, Howard. "Jailed Man is a Videographer and a Blogger But is He a Journalist?" The Washington Post 8 Mar. 2007.

"Politics and Sports with a Southern Accent." Red State Diaries. www.redstatediaries.blogspot.com.

Skube, Michael. "Blogs: All the Noise That Fits." The Los Angeles Times 19 Aug. 2007.

Welch, Matt, Mallory Jensen, and Jacqueline Reeves. "Blogworld and Its Gravity." Columbia Journalism Review 42 (2003).

Blog Paper

2007-11-30T10:41:00.000-05:00

A few months ago “blogging” was word seldom used in my vocabulary. When I pictured a blogger, an image of a brooding adolescent detailing everyday woes on a laptop came to mind; little did I know I would be identifying myself as a blogger in the upcoming semester. I soon realized that blogging is more than a diary; this new form of media has successfully made waves in American society. Blogging, whether concerning politics, environmental issues, or fashion, is about stating one’s agenda, opinions, and critiques in order to propel some kind of change. Blogs are now being brought up in legal issues, written about in national newspapers, and in our case even brought into the classroom.

While blogging started off as a form of dissident media it has evolved into a type of mainstream media. It is easy to find a blog on almost any topic by quickly doing a Google search. While there are some political blogs in circulation to make a daring and different statement, most are likely to be discussing the same issues that appear in the Washington Post each day. Surprisingly, many bloggers “reject the label ‘journalist,’ associating it with what they contemptuously call mainstream media,” (Skube). Apparently the horrors of admitting to being “mainstream” far outweigh the benefits and respect that come with the title of journalist; perhaps bloggers just understand that it is not a title they have truly deserved or earned. Bloggers are not journalists. For the most part, they “have all of the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations,” (Skube). Bloggers do not have editors, deadlines, word limits, or even a specific topic to cover. Bloggers can write without any restraint on their emotion or language because at the end of the day, unlike a journalist, their jobs are not on the line. A Washington Post article on legal issues and bloggers quotes lawyer Martin Garbus as saying, “I would define a journalist as someone who brings news to the public. It’s a definition that might cause journalists some discomfort because it opens up the gates,” (Kurtz). While some bloggers might be skilled at writing, most are unlikely to have the same training and proficiency as a journalist. Garbus’ definition means that any person rattling off information on the internet can be considered a reporter.

Since bloggers have clear differences from journalists, it is unfair for them to be legally tried as a journalist would be. Bloggers do not have the option to join the Writer’s Guild and do not have the same legal protection as a journalist. Some instances contradict this (as of 2006 bloggers are protected under the California state’s reporter shield law), but generally bloggers have different rights than journalists. This became an issue when Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger, was placed in jail for refusing to hand over a videotape he shot of a violent demonstration to the mainstream media (Kurtz). Wolf says there was an understanding of the confidentiality of certain footage between himself and those demonstrating. The filming taking place publicly in San Francisco, along with Wolf’s lack of journalistic merit, are two strong forces against him in this case.

Previously I was careful to state that blogging has become a “type” of mainstream media. From what we have learned I think that some blogs are mainstream and some are dissident, just as there is The New York Times and underground newspapers. Perezhilton.com is merely a tabloid posted over the internet. However, I did encounter many intelligent, well written, original, and opinionated blogs in my research. One in particular was redstatediaries.blogspot.com, a political commentary by an independent residing in Alabama. Blogs like this pinpoint what bloggers contribute to journalism and those reading them; “personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge,” (Welch 24). Blogs should not just be there to report; they are meant to bring up issues the blogger feels mainstream media might have missed or glossed over, while at the same time conveying humor and human interest. They do not need to be perfectly edited, full of impressive quotes and pictures. Blogs can only be dissident through their imperfection. Blogs are “a reminder that America is far more diverse and iconoclastic that its newsrooms,” (Welch 24).

While I am not falling on my knees to worship bloggers, my opinion of them has changed throughout this semester. Sitting at the computer late each Thursday night, trying to come up with a topic that was not only newsworthy, but interesting, proved far more difficult than I would have imagined. I can appreciate the time and effort it keeps to maintain a blog. Even more so, I recognize the ambition and dedication it takes to gain a following to read your blog once you have worked the kinks out of it. I still do not see bloggers as journalists, but I do think they play an important role in the media.

2007-11-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Introduction

Our modern society’s growing dependency upon the internet has revolutionized the ways that we purchase goods, book travel, communicate, and recently with the advent of blogging, the way that we obtain news. Some have cited blogging as form of citizen journalism that poses a multitude of positive and negative effect upon the media. While print journalists have spent time and money acquiring the credentials they need to succeed in the industry, a large influx of untrained, amateur journalists have taken dissident approaches to delivering news. As bloggers do not have editors that filter and revise their stories, blog stylistic methods immensely differ from that of print journalism, yet a blogger’s ability to constantly update and revise content acts as safety net. While this makes blogs more prone to spelling, grammatical and factual errors, it simultaneously offers the reader an opportunity to deliver news in a creative, alternative and decisively dissident manner.

A Dissident Revolution on the Internet

When I began to write for TalkMonkey, I could not help but compare the content and style of my stories to the articles I wrote for The Eagle as a staff writer. I discovered that blogging’s free, lenient structure allowed me to employ more humor and personality in my stories than I was able to with The Eagle. In the Columbia Journalism Review article, “The New Age of Alternative Media,” author Matt Welch states that “with personality…comes a kind of reader interaction far more intense and personal than anything comparable to print.” (24-25) This heightened sense of interaction found online comes about through readers’ ability to comment on, critique and question my writing, whereas with my Eagle stories, the reader’s only option was to acquire my opinion. What ultimately distinguishes my stories for The Eagle from TalkMonkey is the notion of dissidence I felt while writing for the latter. However, it is this sense of journalistic liberation that triggers the most criticism of the medium of blogging. In his article, “What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers,” Steve Outing states that “some bloggers are too quick to publish anything that falls into their laps – without bothering to vet the material to determine if it’s accurate, or to consider the consequences of publishing it.” (2) Outing suggests that with this freedom comes a responsibility on bloggers’ parts to “adhere to a mission of accuracy and accountability,” at least if bloggers want to be respected by their print journalist contemporaries. (2)

What distinguishes blogs from newspapers is the readers’ ability to interact with writers. Journalism stories typical end when they are published, whereas on a blog, a story is debated, further analyzed and occasionally revised. Blogs, more than ever, are “becoming the watchdogs that watch the watchdog,” and this is understandably threatening to print journalists, because in addition to reporting, bloggers are presented with the ability to write, edit, design, and publish on their own accord, and this can be seen in blog’s stylistic differences. (Skube 1) Blogs typically do not abide to the inverted pyramid style of news writing and tend to take longer to reach the story’s central point, and therefore, it is inherently dissident in its structure. For instance, when I wrote my blog post on Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s controversial speech at Columbia, I was able to employ humor: “I couldn’t help but feel as though I was watching an episode of Maury where some disgruntled housewife called out her unfaithful husband and had the paternity test results to back it up.” This obviously would have been deemed unprofessional had I written the same analogy for The Eagle, yet it undoubtedly enhanced my report’s personality.

After 9/11, there was a public outcry that “created a huge appetite on the part of the public to be part The Conversation, to vent and analyze and publicly ponder or mourn.” (Welch 24) In Outing’s account of “What Bloggers Can Learn from Journalists,” he included a quote from media executive, Jeff Jarvis, who prolifically stated that “news is a conversation, not just a lecture.” (4) Critics of blogging often view the medium as deeply biased, for most bloggers fuse news stories with their opinion on the matter; yet presenting an author’s opinion often triggers an emotional response from the reader, and blogging boasts a means of responding through debate. In their article, “Gathering Voices to Share With a Worldwide Online Audience,” Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman conclude that bloggers are revolutionizing communication – independent of traditional forms of media – by drawing attention to widely-ignored issues and “to share ideas and brainstorm with circles of colleagues and peers who are interested in similar subjects or issues-topics that tend not to be a focus of mainstream media stories.” (46) It is ultimately this alternative approach of delivering the news that makes blogging dissident.

In lieu of the widespread decline in newspaper subscription and readership, some question if blogging will replace traditional print journalism. The fundamental problem in this logic is that it suggests that print journalism and blogging cannot survive together. Blogs are revolutionizing the way that we communicate, utilize media and attain news and blogging ultimately presents readers with abilities print journalism cannot alone. Considering society’s ever-escalating dependency upon the internet for news, it is imperative that blogging and print journalism not only exist harmoniously, but collaborate to offer readers thorough accounts of events that fuse facts, multimedia and creativity.

Conclusion: A Second Look at TalkMonkey

When I signed up for the humor section of the blog, I was not entirely sure what my duties would entail. At first I figured that I would have to search for befitting political cartoons and YouTube videos that denigrated politicians. When I wrote my blog posts, though, I began to discuss such hotly contested issues as homophobia, tasering and racism, and I discovered that I could easily explore the topics with the lens of humor. I felt that I offered an ample supply of the hard news one would find in a print journalism article, yet I spiced the stories up with a dose of humor. I honestly did not really notice how the rest of my humor group members handled their work, as TalkMonkey was an extremely decentralized blog; indeed, we had our duties, yet I found that most writers, including myself, tended to handle their stories through their own style and voice. This dispersed approach to posting posed some obstacles, as many writers were not sure when they were responsible to post. At the same time, though, this made TalkMonkey the experiment that it was. We were bestowed a great deal of freedom with our writing, and while this freedom was intimidating at times, it demonstrated how the media is evolving and our individual roles in the equation

Works Cited

MacKinnon, Rebecca, Zuckerman, Ethan. “Gathering Voices to Share With a Worldwide Online Audience.” Nieman Reports (Winter 2006): 45.

Outing, Steve. “What Bloggers Can Learn from Journalists.” Poynter Institute (2004): 4.

Outing, Steve. “What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers.” Poynter Institute (2004): 2.

Skube, Michael. “Blogs All the noise that fits.” Los Angeles Times (2007): 1.

Welch, Matt. ""Blogworld and its Gravity"." Columbia Journalism Review (2003): 24.

Blogging as a Dissident Media

2007-11-30T10:12:00.000-05:00

The Internet has become a vital part of the modern day world. People turn to the Internet, not just for e-mail, entertainment, and research, but also for news and information on the things going on in the world around them. Beginning in the 1990s, Americans began deserting not only newspapers but also the major networks, going to cable TV, the Internet, and forms of new media that seem to be born each day [2]. Theses days, it is so easy for almost anyone to access the Internet, and have a hotbed of information at their fingertips, and contribute their own assortment of information, as displayed by the class project for Dr. Danna Walker’s Dissident Media class.

It has given anyone the opportunity to be a journalist; reporting on topics they see fit, and putting them out there for the world to see. It has served to bring those, young and old, into the public discourse, giving those who may have felt voiceless prior to the Internet [4]. The world of blogging has taken off since its birth in the early days of the Internet and millions of people have created blogs. Online blogging sites like Blogger.com are so user-friendly, that they “allow anyone, no matter how little Internet savvy he or she possesses, to create and maintain a blog” [3].

Blogging has taken the role as the most recent from of dissident media. “They [newspapers] have become so ubiquitous in cities over a certain size, during decades when so many other new media formats have sprung up, that the very notion that they represent a crucial “alternative to a monolithic journalism establishment now stains credulity” [3]. Blogging is providing an outlet for those fed up with mainstream media. Bloggers have become the dissident voices of the new millennium.

Blogging has grown immensely from its early days. It is no longer merely an online record of the Web sites the person visits, but a source for information itself; including news, opinions, and discourse [3]. Blogging has allowed the everyday Joe to get his ideas out there for people to read. As many of them do reference other websites they have visited, they provide connection and discussion. They allow, “through hyperlinks from publications to permanent Websites, for readers to be informed, not merely of the most recent event—as in daily newspapers and TV news programs—but to be continually reminded of the movement’s overall mission statement, goals, and past accomplishments—a service that traditional news outlets refuse to provide” [2]. They are bridging gaps where mainstream media has failed. They are able to provide people with the most up-to-date information, while at the same time linking this to past happenings and other matters that may add insight.

Bloggers are providing insight and discussion on all sorts of topics. Since almost anyone can blog, “almost every criticism about blogs is valid—they often are filled with cheap shots, bad spelling, the worst kind of confirmation bias, and an extremely off-putting sense of self-worth”, but in turn there are also those who provide sophisticated contributions, claiming large readership, instilling change [3]. Many blogs have grown such followings that they seem to hold comparable circulation to some mainstream media. With numbers of visitors per day in the 100,000s, these dissident forms of media seem to be making a huge impact on the world.

The size of the numbers is not the only thing so astonishing. The mere fact that those 100,000s of people are from places all over the world shows just how much influence blogging is gaining. Blogging has been able to provide the world with something that conventional form of media has fallen short in doing, bringing together people from all over the world to discuss and share their thoughts and ideas. “It allows individuals in far-flung locations to come together, to share, and to build the strong ties and sense of community—united in ideology even if separated by geographic distance—that foster a true grassroots movement” [2]. There is also the fact that bloggers have gained ground as “citizen journalists”, in 2004, gaining press credentials to the Democratic National Convention [1].

They are instilling discussion in matters of great disputation, and the need for some reform, and are gaining ground. Blogging is “changing what is euphemistically called the national conversation” [1]. The assignment that our class was given on creating discussion on the issue of renewing political debate is a testament to this. We sought to inspire dialogue through demanding reform of the political debate structure, and we did just that through our blog talkmonkey. We were able to experience the blogging world first hand and create our own dissident media. We wrote about what we wanted to change and how we wanted to change and found those that supported our cause and linked to them in attempts of creating larger interest and involvement. Though the effectiveness of our blog itself is not as great as we would have liked, we still made lasting contributions (as they will be preserved on the Internet) to the world of blogging and dissident media.

[1]Skube, Michael. “Blogs: All the noise that fits.” Los Angeles Times 19 August 2007.

[2] Streitmatter, Rodger. “Voices of Revolution; the Dissident Press in America”. New York: Columbia University Press. 2001.

[3] Welch, Matt. “Blogworld and its Gravity”. Colombia Journalism Review. 2003

[4] Vargas, Jose Antonio. “Storming the News Gatekeepers; On the Internet, Citizen Journalists Raise Their Voices”. Washingtonpost.com. 27 November 2007.

Is Blogging Dissident?

2007-11-30T10:00:00.000-05:00

Blogging and Dissident Media

Society’s advancement of communication technologies creates more outlets for the voices of others to speak their minds and let people know about what is going on. Some of the foundations of this country rely on the ability and freedom to communicate all sides of an issue. As we move forward in the 21^st century, people see blogging as the next and newest form of a counter message to society. Blogging faces many challenges in order to accomplish this task.

In an opinion editorial piece in the Los Angeles Times on the 19^th of August 2007, Michael Skube wrote about how bloggers create a lot of noise, but do not back up their statements with journalistic style fact-checking. Though Skube’s point may not necessarily be true, Skube’s statement and sentiment brings up a more pressing point about how blogging is treated within mainstream society. The general statement in society is that bloggers are highly opinionated people who yell about issues/problems that may or may not exist.

In an article for the Columbia Journalism Review, Matt Welch writes about how people were fed-up with mainstream media and how ineffective they were at reporting what happened after September 11, 2001. Welch believed that this event caused the explosion of interaction within the blog-sphere. Welch correlates that this explosion of interaction gave blogging more credibility within mainstream media.

The problem with Welch’s position is that he assumes the blog-sphere gained credibility with the increase of bloggers. Welch does not take into consideration the idea that people who blog may not be people who want to be these citizen journalists that take up causes and try to be good journalists and uncover stories. Welch does not take into account people who just want to sound off about an issue and not really fact check or people who blog about personal items or non-political subjects, like sports and entertainment.

This is the quandary blogging faces as it moves on through the century. Blogging has the potential to become a more trust worthy place to receive news and be the new form of dissident media in the world. The major problem would be that those bloggers who try to be legitimate and trust worthy would have to disassociate with other bloggers and become their own entity. But since there is this concept of a blogging community or the blog-sphere, it seems unlikely any rift will occur.

Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, responded to Skube’s L.A. Times op-ed piece with a counter argument. In the op-ed piece, Rosen listed off more then a dozen names of bloggers who were doing the old school investigative journalism that Skube called for in his op-ed piece.

What will most likely happen is that blogging will become integrated with other social web interactions like MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, creating something that resembles the end of the flash animation Epic 2015. In the flash animation, they predict a huge communications war between Microsoft, the conglomeration of Google and Amazon, and the New York Times. The future of the internet and blogging will be completely personalized to what we want and what we find interesting in the world.

Since this will most likely be the fate of blogging, it would be very difficult to classify blogging as a true dissident medium. If certain respectable blogs were to remove the blog umbrella from their identity, then they would be dissident. But blogging as a whole will not be dissident due to the fact that so many other things encompass blogging.

I personally tried my hand at creating a blog, but the blog only proved my idea about how blogging is not necessarily dissident. It was a sports blog and how I felt about certain issues in the major sports I liked. In no way shape or form was I trying to be dissident with this blog. This was only for my personal amusement and trying my hand at blogging. A lot of times, I did not even feel like writing a post for the blog. It felt like another class assignment I had to do. It also did not help that before coming into this class, I did not read any actual blogs that could be found on blogspot.

My Broadcast Journalism I class also created a blog, but for the shear purpose of posting the podcast we created onto the internet for people to listen to. Our goal was to get this out to as many people as possible. The stories we wrote and talked about were all mainstream stories, but they were taken with more of an alternative flare. Now our podcast is now up on iTunes and everyone can listen to it. So we have become more of an alternative source of mainstream news and not dissident, though we had no intention of being dissident.

The blog-sphere has the potential and desire to be dissident, but due to the over-arching umbrella that blogging covers, it can only become personal information or alternative sources of mainstream media. Dissident media will use the internet and blogging as part of an overall arching concept that the newspaper industry uses by combining print editions, web editions and word of mouth of their story and other information. This is how the new of dissident information will be spread across the world.

The Blogging Experience for Whatever It's Worth

2007-11-30T09:36:00.000-05:00

You would think that something as high-tech as blogging would be an easy feat to overcome. With such smart minds in our university, you would think that thirty or so college students would get it right. You would think something James Kotecki can do in his bathtub (Kotecki, James) that we would be able to do it with full concentration. However, there were definitely some differing views on the blog. Why couldn’t we all just get it to work? Whatever the case may be, if it did or didn’t work, I’ve gained more of an understanding of the blogging and online culture. There is always a lesson to be learned with every experience you go through.

Most people would say that this was an utter failure. They would say that the blog was just a mess, a cluster of random posts smashed together about an array of topics that really didn’t have any relevance to each other whatsoever. I would have to agree with the observations made, and that there was no actual dialogue between any of our classmates. Just because people get their opinions out there doesn’t mean that anyone is reading them.

The fact that there is no dialogue between the bloggers and the bloggers with the outside world makes this blog not really a blog. Jeff Jarvis, a popular blogger with BuzzMachine, says in an interview with ponyter.org that “news is a conversation, not just a lecture. The story doesn’t end when it’s published, but rather just gets started as the public begins to do its part – discussing the story, adding to it, and correcting it” (Outing, Steve).

However, the same thing that diminishes the whole idea of a blog also gives it strength to the argument that it actually worked. There has always been talk of a “marketplace of ideas,” and blogging just enhances that reality. It’s so easy nowadays to just sit at your computer and post something you feel passionate about on a webpage. Getting an idea out there is more accessible to everyone. Since more and more blogs are being made, the word about certain issues can reach the officials in government and actually make a difference.

But, I digress; most of the blogging experience was thwarted by the apathy of the class as a whole. Most students saw this as more of a grade then as a way to propel social change. If you want an online revolution, there needs to be a passion to want to change it. Also, half of the class was apathetic about politics since the beginning (myself included). If we don’t have anything constructive to write about an issue (if we don’t know much about it, if we think it’s boring, etc.), then the blog crashing and burning was inevitable.

The blogging that counts is always by someone who has shown an interest in politics (or whatever they’re blogging about) their whole lives. We saw this with Josh Wolf, who got arrested for his actions as a blogger. In an interview with his mother, she said that “even in high school, he was standing up for things that weren’t considered popular” (Kurtz, Howard). In high school, what most people would consider the normal behavior of a student was not what Josh Wolf exemplified. He was not a “normal” kid when growing up.

If the more vocal members of the class would have spoken up and sparked a little fire in the hearts of the rest of the class, the blog project may have worked better. If there was a reason deeper than a grade for people to post new and exciting things, then the buzz of our blog would have been larger. As we have seen with many of the dissident presses in our nation’s history, getting together an army of people who think the same thing and the same way is the only way that any change will occur.

Even though much of my blog experience was pretty crappy, there was a lot that I learned about the power of the online word. With mainstream news stories, they feel so rehearsed and cookie-cutter. With blogging, the writing is very raw and people are allowed to say whatever they want. There’s no editing by a higher power. It’s just you and the words. There is so much editing in mainstream news companies that the voice of the reporter could be censored by their bosses. Blogging allows the blogger to be their own boss on how things should be done.

Since blogs are so easy to find online, the audience that reads these blogs may not have read it if it wasn’t for accessibility. The less popular ideas are given the spotlight they deserve through the invention of the blogosphere. The “marketplace of ideas” is in full effect with the online world. The structure of a blog is so much less intimidating for the audience as well, so this is another reason why these unheard of ideas are being pushed the forefront, and the people with the small voices can finally be heard by the big dogs.

All was definitely not lost; I can’t stress this enough. Our words and thoughts are permanently etched onto a webpage that everyone who has a computer can access. Although most of us are not experts in any fields, someone might stumble upon our small little blog and say, “Hey, this person has a point!” The point of a blog is to bring about social change, and with every set of eyes that lays their sight onto our blog, then the mission of the blog has been fulfilled. Changing one person’s opinion at a time may be a little long to bring about any sort of revolution, but it’s still one opinion that was changed because someone made a good argument on a blog. Taking baby steps is still moving forward.

Kotecki, James. "James Kotecki." James Kotecki. 28 Nov. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007

http://jameskotecki.com/.

Outing, Steve. "Poynter Online - What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers." Poynter.Org. 20

Dec. 2004. 30 Nov. 2007 .

Kurtz, Howard. "Jailed Man is a Videographer and a Blogger But is He a Journalist?..."

Washingtonpost.Com. 8 Mar. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007 .

Blog Paper

2007-11-30T09:34:00.000-05:00

Blog Paper
The blogosphere is one of the most recent and sweeping changes in modern day communication. Blogging is the simple practice of posting one's ideas, stories, or basically anything on the internet. Through posting blogs, people are able to get their ideas heard and connect with other like-minded individuals. Blogs cover every topic under the sun—from recipes to coverage of the Iraq War. A unique aspect of blogging that has contributed to its booming popularity is the fact that anyone can blog. It's simply a matter of getting online, visiting a blogging website, and posting a blog. There are no credentials necessary and people can write whatever they want, whether informative, accurate, or neither.
This new media has already transformed the news. Bloggers are able to instantly get news stories out to the public. Live-blogging (going out to an event and blogging as it is happening) is gaining popularity, especially while America is gearing up for the elections. The 2008 Presidential election is keeping the bloggers busy, and this is seen most clearly in video blogging. Candidates have been getting online and releasing videos for the public. You Tube is just another facet of the blogging world.
Through both print and video, people are spreading their ideas and getting their voice heard. This is making Big Media nervous. “We've owned the printing press for centuries; not the people have the power of the press [through blogs]. They are speaking and it's our turn to listen and engage them in conversation” (Outing 7). The general public has taken matters into their own hands and, after the massive journalistic failures and shortcomings revealed in the Iraq war coverage, maybe it's for the best. But blogging does compromise integrity; there are no guidelines or ramifications for lying. It is this freedom that inspires bloggers to continue—they will never be censored for saying what they believe. Also, the blogging world is a new way to find undiscovered talent. “You've got tens of thousands of potential columnists writing for free, fueled by passion, operating in a free market where the cream rises quickly” (Welch).
Big Media is facing a lot of problems. According to a poll conducted earlier this year, more than half of Americans say “US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate and don't care about the people they report on” (E&P). This shows the trend of disenchantment and disinterest in mainstream media outlets. 24 news channels and newspapers are losing their credibility. They are no longer the only source for information for the people. Blogs are a way to actively engage the public; to continue examining the story even after it's published. This interactivity is the exact thing Big Media is lacking. Corporations are interested in merging and money, whereas people are interested in stories. Blogs are much more honest and transparent, though not always more accurate. Through posting a blog, a conversation is started and the public is needing more conversation and a little less action.
While blogging is helping information get out and enabling people to get involved, it's not always a good thing. People can post whatever they want, regardless of relevance or accuracy. There are no journalistic standards and, while this can help people get their voices heard, it can also lead to misinformation. During the 2004 Presidential election, Wonkette.com printed false rumors about John Kerry knowing that they were most likely fictitious. When asked why, bloggers stated “I publish anything because I can” (Outing). This statement shows that blogging is much more about the freedom to publish the news than the accuracy of the news. Despite the lack of regulations regarding fact-checking, blogs are often very credible and informed. They've been instrumental in breaking stories that big media ignores. Without the blog world and other means of communication, even such recent controversies like the Jena 6 may have stayed under the radar.
In order to learn more about the blog world, we created a blog at Talkmonkey. The goal of our blog was to encourage political debate. This format allowed us to post ideas and for other classmates to respond to these opinions and offer their insight. We tracked the blog's growth in class and were able to see that quite a few people were looking at our blog. The experience taught me the impact that blogs could have. Simply by typing in a Google search, people can stumble upon blogs and their ideas and views can be challenged. It's a unique environment that encourages creativity, critical thinking, and skepticism. These elements have been lacking in Big Media for quite sometime, and the public has responded with blogging.
Critical Theory teaches the importance of questioning the dominant paradigm. Blogs seek to fill the gaps that have been made in the fabric of media. They're working to reclaim reason, unmask power, and contest hegemony (Brookfield). The blog world provides a free marketplace of ideas, unfettered by power and regulations. This new, independent media is both exciting and terrifying. The power of the internet is growing and blogging is at the forefront of this movement. Whether for or against it, blogging is the wave of the future.

Blogging: Accessible, Cheap, Dissident

2007-11-30T09:19:00.000-05:00

Today the majority of the information that people consume is through the mainstream media. In fact, many people think that mainstream news is the only way to really obtain information at all. However, people of younger generations and people whose views are critical of this system have begun to take notice within the past few years, that there are other options. Blogging, do to its accessibility and in some cases dissident nature, has become a great tool for activists, and has been useful in getting important issues of social justice heard. It truly has become the newest outlet for dissident media.

There is debate about blogging’s credibility as a form of journalism. The purpose of journalism is to get important stories out there for the public to know about. Blogs, in many cases, as well as other alternative publications are, in fact, responsible for breaking important stories that at first were viewed by the mainstream media as unimportant or too controversial to report. It’s obvious that the mainstream media won’t cover issues of social justice due to the fact that their main source of income, advertising, is funded by the very entities that are the cause of many injustices.

When corporate capitalists are funneling in money and keeping mainstream media outlets above water, the programming of these outlets becomes predictable and in a way censored. With car commercials and gas companies’ advertisements, how often does the public hear about global warming on the six o’clock news, despite the fact that it is important and it affects everyone? So now the question is if the mainstream media won’t cover important issues is it really credible? I would say not.

There are blogs that are not credible sources either, however, once a blog gains credibility and notoriety, the blog can participate in some pretty important reporting. There are many issues that aren’t touched by the mainstream media prior to being blogged about. For instance Faye Anderson who considers herself a citizen journalist, “blogs about illegal immigration constantly and wrote extensively about the Jena Six case well before MSM started covering the racial conflicts…She credit black bloggers, alongside black radio, with closely following the story.” (Vargas) Also with the mainstream media being very anti-Chavez and not as inclusive of news about Latin America, there are blogs such as the Latin American News Review that offer another side of the story.

Of course not all blogs very credible and most are not used as journalistic outlets. Michael Skube questioned the credibility of blogs, and wrote of how some non-credible blogs bring all other blogs’ credibility into question. If one really considers this an argument than one might question CNN’s credibility when the E! channel airs nothing but shallow gossip and rumors about celebrities. This argument doesn’t really hold water.

With the growth and popularity of the Internet, journalism is also more accessible to people who not only might not have the most popular opinions, but have very little money. Blogging has really revolutionized dissident media because it’s cheap. In Streitmatter’s book, in almost every chapter there were stories of how dissident publications had trouble staying afloat with the denial of most advertising revenue. Printing and distributing is expensive. With blogging, both of these aspects of publishing are free.

In the United States it is the Constitutional right of the people to the freedom to speak, assemble, and “the existence and toleration of a diversity of ideas and opinions within the free press”. John Stuart Mill advocated for a free marketplace of ideas. With a homogenous mainstream media, blogs are covering what they are not, enriching journalism in this country, as well as all over the world. Blogs are the voices of those without the funding to publish in print, and those voices come from a much different place that aren’t clouded with special interest groups agendas.

Blogs also are accessible to people all across the world. The Internet is easy to use and free to look at, minus a monthly wireless subscription. With only a few keystrokes people can have access to all kinds of news, minus the ninety-nine cents per article one has to pay to read the New York Times online. Also many young people today spend hours on the Internet. Even spending one day without it seems impossible. (Walker) Knowing how dependent people, particularly younger generations are on technology, this is great way to gain readership.

Also another great aspect of using the Internet to broadcast one’s thoughts is that it reaches across national borders. The video blog of Comandante Marcos of the Zapatistas awing revolutionaries everywhere and even our own blog that got hits from around the world is proof that blogs have a unique way of communicating internationally.

There are many things that make blogging an optimal form of dissident media. There’s a backlash due to a non-credible homogenous mainstream media, that leaves people looking for news elsewhere. Blogs are free and have no publishing cost, and blogs cast a wide net of readership with their accessibility via the World Wide Web. Blogs are the newest avenue of publishing for activist journalists everywhere, and no matter how disenfranchised someone is or how far away someone is, blogs allow people to be heard.

Sources

1. Skube, Michael. "Blogs: All the News That Fits." The Los Angeles Times 19 Aug. 2007.
2. Vargas, Jose A. "Storming the News Gatekeepers." The Washington Post 27 Nov. 2007.
3. Walker, Danna. "The Longest Day." The Washington Post 5 Aug. 2007.

Blogosphere and the Dissident Voice

2007-11-30T09:18:00.000-05:00

Kristi Warren 11/29/2007 Blog Paper

Three years into my print journalism major and I have realized that I grimace every time a professor utters the word “blogosphere.” It’s an unconscious reaction. It’s not that I dislike the blogosphere. On the contrary, I think the blogging world has made the whole field of journalism incredibly exciting and dynamic. Unfortunately several of my past professors—stricken with fear of their field being driven obsolete by a writer professionally known as Gnarlygirl27—have rammed the negative aspects of the blog down my throat. Therefore I was very pleased to be able to form my own opinion about the value of the blogging medium.

Blogging is a valuable form of dissident media. According to Rodger Streitmatter’s Voices of Revolution, in order for a publication to be dissident “it not only had to offer a differing view of society but also had to seek to change society in some discernible way. … The publication’s primary purpose must have been, in short, to effect social change.” (Voices of Revolution, pp. xi) The blogosphere not only does this in a democratic way, but is convenient, uncensored and analytical. I’ve come to this conclusion through past knowledge, research and my own personal experience adding to the blogosphere on http://talkmonkey.blogspot.com/ .

As a form of dissident media, the universality of the blogosphere is unprecedented. The best thing about the internet is that anyone can write a blog. Unlike typical contributors to traditional forms of dissident media, someone’s age, experience and formal education are never an obstacle. All one needs is access to a computer. The internet provides a truly democratic forum for the average person to express themselves.

On the other hand, the worst thing about the internet is that anyone can write a blog. This has consequences to the quality of what is posted online. In Emerging Altenatives: Blogworld, a discussion of the merits of blogging as journalism, Matt Welch adds this qualifier, "Which is not to say that 90 percent of news-related blogs aren't crap." My internet-phobic professors drove this point home: Everyone’s airheaded little sister and cat-obsessed neighbor can start a blog. Posting your diary online is not news, nor is copying and pasting from the New York Times and writing snippy comments.

Welch puts this into perspective though, “First of all, 90 percent of any new form of expression tends to be mediocre (think of band demos, or the cringe-inducing underground papers of years gone by), and judging a medium by its worst practitioners is not very sporting.” I think if mainstream publications don’t have to be equated to tabloids then blogs should not be lumped into one category either.

And those who disregard the influence of the amateur blog writer must keep in mind the concept of “spheres of influence.” Just like dissident publications of yesteryear, blogs can push overlooked issues into the forefront of the public consciousness.

Advancements in technology have paved the way for the role of the internet in dissident coverage. Now anyone with a camera-phone can conveniently provide the public with first hand footage directly to the net. It’s easier to post articles, pictures, video and podcasts to the internet than trying to establish a dissident newspaper, radio program or public television station. One also reaches a wider audience and gains attention faster. James Kotecki began posting in early 2007 and he has already garnered enough attention to warrant his own Wikipedia entry . No longer does an aspiring journalist have to undergo years of schooling, internships and beat reporting to write something that will effect social change.

The lack of strict censorship rules decreases the sense of culpability but increases the likelihood of hearing both sides of a contentious issue. My first experience with a news blog was reading www.bartcop.com after the big media began pushing the white house’s agenda about weapons of mass destruction. Bartcop.com is a radically anti-conservative blog which would lead one to question its reliability if it was a traditional news source. Yet the website was very vocal and persuasive with its evidence of lack of WMD evidence. Websites like bartcop.com are examples of why blogging will continue to be a prevalent dissident form. There are always several sides to an issue and the internet makes it that much easier to hear what the other side has to say.

I was nervous about posting blogs to the talkmonkey site. Exposing my views to the world was daunting as the internet can be very permanent despite its transient reputation. I avoided posting anything about my personal political affiliations and focused on analyzing the behavior of prominent political figures and scholars. I don’t necessarily think what I wrote about was dissident to what the mainstream was putting out. I did try and go more into depth and explore areas that the mainstream didn’t cover, in particular with the snubbed minority-hosted republican debate.

I think I have come to appreciate the tenacity of the dissident blogger. It is difficult to be dissident. It requires more than shaking your head at everything the mainstream puts out. It requires analysis and an activist’s sensibility. One has to realize what the mainstream is not covering, point it out, and then go and cover it. It has motivated me to start my own blog and make it news worthy. It has also made me regain my appreciation for the word, “blogosphere”.

Works cited:

"Renewing Political Debate." Talkmonkey.Blogspot.Com. 30 Nov. 2007. American University. 29 Nov. 2007 .

Welch, Matt. "Emerging Alternatives: Blogworld." Cjrarchives.Org. 2007. Columbia University Review. 29 Nov. 2007 .

"Bartcop's Most Recent Rants: Political Humor and Commentary." Bartcop.Com. 30 Nov. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007 .

Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution: the Dissident Press in America. New York: Columbia UP, 2001. xi.

All The News Thats Fit to Blog

2007-11-30T08:24:00.000-05:00

Ashley Murphy
Professor Walker
COMM 275
Blog Paper

All The News That’s Fit to Blog

Dissident media has evolved and greatly expanded with a great amount of help that can be accredited to the internet. Matt Welch writes in his article, “Blogworld and It’s Gravity: The New Amateur Journalists Weigh In,” that, “blogging technology has. . . given the average Jane the ability to write, edit, design, and publish her own editorial product,” (Welsh 22). Blogging and the internet has greatly improved the ability to express one’s opinion regarding virtually anything, however, it has also has stirred controversy over what is considered journalism and what is dissident.

The purpose of dissident media is to provide a different view on a topic. Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines dissident as, “disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief,” (Merriam-Webster Online). Dissident media was formed with the focus of showing stories in a different light than main-stream media as well as covering topics that main-stream media either does not cover or does not cover to its fullest. In the past, dissident media can be seen as pamphlets, radio broadcasts, and newspapers such as The Revolution (Steitmatter). Today the presence of these medias is still alive, yet the internet has become a center for dissident media especially blogs.

Blogs not only became a place for people to vent regarding an issue, blogs are now places that people write news stories and many are looked at in a professional light. Blogs have allowed citizen journalists to flourish and give internet users an option besides main-stream media news. The use of blogs on the internet allows readers to view and also write news on numerous stories that may not be found in main-stream publications and blogs also provide a sense of timeliness that newspapers cannot. As soon as news breaks, bloggers can write a news story and post it without the hassle of editors and having it printed in a paper. In many cases news blogs are a way for citizen journalists to “keep the media honest,” as Markos Moulitsas Zuniga says in an interview with Michael Skube (Skube). Skube writes that blogging implies “all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations,” (Skube). The ability to voice an opinion to millions of people at a time without having to be a part of the New York Times or Washington Post is very powerful and blogs allow citizen journalists to do that.

However not all blogs can be looked at as serious forms of news and some blogs have discredited the name of those citizen journalists who do take blogging serious and use their blogs to provide the public with hard hitting serious new stories. Skube writes in his article, “Blogs: All the noise that fits” that, “bloggers now are everywhere among us, and no one asks if we don’t need more full-throated advocacy on the Internet. The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like posting and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined,” (Skube). For those embracing the crusade of making blogging a notable form of journalism, it is a bumpy road. The internet allows anyone to start their own blog, an emphasis on anyone, and some blogs hinder the cause of making blogging a serious form of journalism.

In the world of activism, blogs provide a source of constant communication regarding progression and news. They can also form a sort of pseudo community that allows people to participate without being close in actual proximity. Activist blogs can update participants with rallies, protests, and news regarding their cause. Yet if the issue is not seeing any progression or if no news is occurring regarding the issue it may be hard to post on a blog as a form of activism.

Although dissident media is a form of media that goes against the norms and is supposed to disagree with a larger system, it has become very main-stream. Blogs are no longer a form of media that is seen as out of the normal. They have been accepted and integrated into society and into the lives of news viewers. The aspect about blogs that still remains dissident is the ability to have a blog about anything the creator wants. Blogs as a whole are not a form of dissident media rather a blog dedicated to a specific topic may be seen as dissident.

Works Cited

"Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary." Merriam-Webster Online. 28 Nov. 2001
.
Skube, Michael. "Blogs: All the Noise That Fits." Los Anges Times 19 Aug. 2007. 23 Aug. 2007
.
Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution. New York City: Columbia UP, 2001.
Welch, Matt. "Blogworld and It’s Gravity: The New Amateur Journalists Weigh In." Columbia
Jounalism Review 42 (2003): 20-26.

Blogs: A Unique Opportunity for Dissidence

2007-11-30T04:16:00.000-05:00

Bryan Koenig
Dissident Media
Comm-275-001
Professor Walker
11-30-07

Blogs: A Unique Opportunity for Dissidence
Blogging is an extremely young concept, going back only as far as the origins of the internet. Dissident Media, the institution with which it is associated however has been around for centuries. The relation between these two is finicky and difficult to pin down. The problem with blogging is that we do not as yet have the luxury of historical perspective. We are looking at blogging in the here and now, and it is possible only to speculate how history will ultimately judge this fledgling media. The present perspective afforded us points to blogging as facilitating dissident press, not however as a dissident media in and of itself.
Blogging as a media of any kind, be it dissident, mainstream or otherwise, is like no form of communication anyone has ever seen. The power of the pen is more available to more people than at any point in history. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have access to the internet, able to read blogs as well as create their own. Just fifty years ago, no one would have been able to conceive of such communicative abilities even in the wildest of their dreams.
People blog on every conceivable topic, and some that are well outside common conception. Such a huge diversity makes blogging a potential avenue for dissidence, but not by itself a part of the dissident press. The mainstream use dissident press just as much, if not more so than the dissident. Laymen and professionals alike clog the internet with blogs on comic books, movies, whale watching, firefighting, you name it and there is almost certainly a blog for it. Even professional journalists themselves are beginning to post blogs.
Some blogs and bloggers are decidedly dissident. The prime example are the citizen journalists who take the initiative to go out, gather information, conduct research and present detailed facts and persuasive arguments by which they fight for a myriad of causes, and from both sides of the political spectrum.
Whatever blogging is or is not, what can be said of it for certain is that without question, its power is growing rapidly. Faye Anderson’s acceptance into a presidential debate gives strong reason to agree with her postulation that “the debate about whether bloggers are journalists is over.”[1]
The single biggest problem with Anderson’s statement is that she is looking at blogging as a blogger invited to a presidential debate. Aside from being historical, the moment was also statistically insignificant. More blogs than anyone could ever hope to read in a single lifetime dot the internet, but only a sliver of a fraction of a percent were even considered as potential candidates for the debate. They are the citizen journalist bloggers like Anderson who bothered to take their role as far as possible, instead of the scantily researched and largely opinion based articles that constitute the vast majority of blogs.
As Steve Outing puts it, “with blogging, it’s up to the individual blogger. With no institution or organization watching over them and guiding their behavior, we can only hope that most bloggers adhere to a mission of accuracy and accountability.”[2] That is not to say that all journalists are respectable and truly of journalistic quality, only that a far greater percentage of them are considered as such as opposed to the blogging community.
For all its drawbacks, blogging as a dissident media outlet is a dream come true for every concerned citizen with internet access. An almost universal feature of dissident media is that from the labor papers of the 1800s to the feminist papers of the late 1900s, such publications were started by the disenfranchised and poorly funded outcasts of society and produced for little or no financial gain via cheap means of publication and distribution.[3]
In today’s day and age, there is no better example of such a financially lacking voice than that of blogs. Anyone who can afford a computer and internet access can blog. And their words can be distributed far beyond the walls of their home or hometown or even home country. The internet is the ultimate tool of distribution. Concerned, informed, well spoken and hard working people are taking notice and using this revolutionary tool. The internet allows people to undertake what Jay Rosen calls, “the patient sifting of fact, the acknowledgement that assertion is not evidence…the depiction of real life.”[4]
Rosen goes on to describe numerous instances where bloggers contributed immensely to mainstream discussion from their dissident perch. In some instances, it has been bloggers that have shined a light on internationally spanning issues, acting as the ultimate ideal of dissidence. In those cases, ordinary men and women outside of the journalist community became whistle blowers. Their voice was for all to hear as a citizen journalist, creating widespread talk and even change among the mainstream.
Before I started this project, I had little knowledge, understanding, experience or even opinion of blogging. About all I could say is that blogs had never occurred to me to be a powerful tool for influencing the mainstream. They seemed distant, unimportant and irrelevant. My news came from professional journalists at newspapers and TV stations. Now I realize the enormous power and importance of blogs. I admit that my own career plan is one of a mainstream journalist, but I think it’s important to consider all aspects of media, especially one growing as quickly as blogging.
How much if at all I made a difference as a blogger, I really couldn’t say. To my knowledge no one has given serious thought or effort to further exploring or solving any of the problems I’ve highlighted in my blog posts. I can however say with pride that our blog post appears repeatedly under a Google search for dissident media, starting on the second page.[5]
I know outsiders have viewed our blogs, and that alone provides me with a great deal of comfort. If someone read our blogs and gained a new perspective or insight into the political world, I think we’re well on our way to becoming dissident journalists. Instead of getting paid, we pay huge sums of money for this privilege. We do so out of a genuine concern for the state of political debate in the United States using a cheap and easily accessible means of publication and distribution available to us, and we make our arguments using carefully considered discussion and research.
Works Cited
"Dissident Media." Google. 30 Nov. 2007 .
Outing, Steve. "What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists." Poynter Online. 23 Dec. 2004. 30 Nov. 2007 .
Rosen, Jay. "The Journalism That Bloggers Actually Do." LA Times 22 Aug. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007 .
Streitmatter, Roger. Voices of Revolution. New York: Columbia UP, 2001. 3-256.
Vargas, Jose A. "Storming the News Gatekeepers." Washington Post 27 Nov. 2007. 30 Nov. 2007 .

[1] Vargas
[2] Outing
[3] Streitmatter
[4] Rosen
[5] “Dissident Media”

The Blogosphere: A Modern Source of Dissidence

2007-11-30T03:31:00.000-05:00

Christopher Cottrell

November 30, 2007

COMM-275

The Blogosphere: A Modern Source of Dissidence

Dissident news sources have always coexisted with the mainstream media, if not always peacefully. The most significant advancement came recently, with the onset of the Internet. Today, available technology makes advocating social or political dissidence easier than ever. With the emergence of “web logs,” citizens have gained more control than ever over their institutions. Internet blogging provides the means to communicate thoughts and opinions, analyses and reactions, across enormous distances. The thousands of people who are online at any given moment can monitor anything from presidential debates, to the media coverage they receive, and do so instantly. This paper will examine the role bloggers play in affecting news coverage, and will determine to what degree web logs are a form of dissident media. It will also describe one student’s personal experience with sharing his ideas on a worldwide scale.

There is no single way to define a blogger. However, compared to a formal journalist, there are specific characteristics the journalist is expected to fulfill, i.e. attaining credible sources, doing sufficient research, and presenting unbiased facts to the general public. These traits set reporters apart from many online writers. A lack of these characteristics is often one of the main criticisms of bloggers. Without strict regulations, it’s true that anyone can be a blogger. In an article titled Few Turn to Blogs for News, Thomas Hargrove quoted a blogger as saying, “The best part of blogging is that anybody can say anything. The worst part, of course, is that anybody can say anything” (Hargrove). This has proven to be both advantageous and a burden to readers, who can find everything from solid news to meaningless gossip on the Web.

It is the John Does who place every bit of gossip on their Web sites (because they can) that give the blogosphere a bad name. In his article, What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers, Steve Outing clearly identifies a negative aspect of such freedom, “Some bloggers are too quick to publish anything that falls into their laps—without bothering to vet the material to determine if it's accurate, or to consider the consequences of publishing it” (Outing). In the gossipers’ defense, while inaccuracies in blogs are certainly not ideal, they have created an online atmosphere where critical thinking skills are more important than ever to possess. Citizens are learning that information must be subject to heavy scrutiny before taken as fact.

Scrutiny is the most fundamental component of critical thinking. If it is true that “Ninety percent of news-related blogs [are] crap” (Welch, Jensen and Reeves), then it is essential that readers take all information they encounter with a grain of salt—including material from blogs as well as the mainstream media. Recognizing that the “mass media are obviously central to the smooth functioning of hegemony” (Brookfield), is an important step in a critical approach to news gathering. A reader must remember that all major news outlets are themselves large corporations, subject to the pull of capitalism like any other business. It is the duty of bloggers to keep such hegemony in check. This is not always accomplished, thus readers must also read blogs through a critical lens.

Although bloggers do not always counter the mainstream media, they do enough to label this particular form of communication dissident. Sometimes bloggers are in agreement with the ideals of mainstream society; however, bloggers offer enough of a balance to the hegemonic media system, and clearly do so in a nontraditional way that they have earned themselves this classification.

While most critics do not ignore bloggers like those in our Dissident Media class, who do sufficient research, confirm sources, and offer intelligible yet alternative viewpoints in order to further the topic at hand, they tend to focus on the majority of blogosphere contributors who soil their credibility as writers with careless syntax errors. The people who cover newsworthy events, like our class did with the current political debates are for the most part a well-educated crowd.

We fulfilled our obligations of rejuvenating political debate by analyzing and critiquing its present forms, as well as the media’s coverage thereof. By doing so, we illustrated a key function of web logging: supervision of the mainstream media. In his Los Angeles Times article, Blogs: All the Noise that Fits, Michael Skube stressed the importance of bloggers keeping an eye on major news corporations, and predicted “bloggers becoming the watchdogs that watch the watchdog” (Skube). Finally the big dailies have someone to answer to who isn’t Big Business.

This is exactly why bloggers are not journalists, but merely part of the journalistic process. Blogging is an exercise in free speech, available to anyone with an internet connection—making it the most democratic form of media to date. Being a part of the current “information revolution” was an interesting experience. The task our class completed was targeted at a larger audience than most students are accustomed to, and for this reason alone it was significant. It taught us how to prepare our articles for a mass audience while simultaneously teaching us how interaction on an individual level can improve an argument by providing an opposing viewpoint.

By encouraging involvement, blogging forced us to stay informed and become active participants in the discussion. According to an article in last Tuesday’s Washington Post, “Independent of the candidates, voters…are interacting with the 2008 presidential election at an unprecedented level because of the Internet, YouTubing, Facebooking, Wikipedia-ing, et al” (Vargas). The article, Storming the News Gatekeepers, also went on to explain that the blogging wave has ushered in a new understanding of news; namely, that once something is published it is only the beginning, rather than the end of its media coverage. This allows for more complete and efficient news reporting. “Freedom of the press belongs to nearly 3 million people,” stated Matt Welch, author of Blogworld and its Gravity, reflecting on the ability of anyone with an Internet connection to publish their opinions (Welch, Jensen and Reeves). Blogging represents a whole new scale of communication; whereas print media typically has a limited number of authors, online blogging sites can potentially have thousands of different contributors.

With such a large number of potential contributors, a communication medium will inherently have more informal writers than a formal group of news gatherers, such as journalists. As stated above, the difference in writing styles is accounted for in the expected characteristics of professional reporters. Thus, thousands of online writers can contribute to the journalistic process, but only an elite fraction of them can be true journalists.

However, the flaws and inaccuracies associated with amateur bloggers have taught our society an important lesson. Namely, that all information, whether obtained from a formal news source or an informal blog, should be critically examined. It is the duty of the news media to make sure public institutions remain faithful to their citizens; as it is the duty of bloggers to make sure the news media is doing its job sufficiently. While these missions may seem righteous, the news media and some bloggers may have other agendas. Therefore, it is no one’s responsibility but our own to watch out for rouges in the system.

Participating in a form of dissident media directed at a mass audience was a rewarding experience. Regardless of whether our Talkmonkey project had an effect on the contemporary political debate scheme or not, in this student’s opinion—it was worth the trouble.

Works Cited

Brookfield, Stephen D. The Power of Critical Theory. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.

Hargrove, Thomas. detnews.com. 1 9 2006. 1 9 2006 .

Outing, Steve. Poynter Online. 20 12 2004. 29 11 2007 .

Skube, Michael. Los Angeles Times Online. 19 8 2007. 23 8 2007 .

Vargas, Jose A. washingtonpost.com. 27 11 2007. 29 11 2007 .

Welch, Matt, Mallory Jensen and Jacqueline Reeves. Blogworld and its Gravity. New York, 9/10 2003.

Blogging

2007-11-30T02:34:00.000-05:00

Before this class I had never really thought much about the blog world. Less then a

decade ago there were almost no blogs in existence. It was not until 1999 when a company called

Pyra Labs, later bought out by Google, created a program called Blogger, making blogs simple

and easy to create for the masses.(Welch) I assumed bloggers to be mostly complainers and

people with too much time on their hands. I had never even heard of blogs such as Politico or

Technorati. It has now gotten to the point where I read updates from several different blogs a

day.

With the coalescing of the American media into fewer and fewer hands the ability of anyone to set up a blog has created a modern version of Wayland’s citizen journalists that were the core of The Appeal to Reason. As Prof. Rockwell pointed out the more corporate the media the less it tends to get into any issues that could potentially spark controversy. Thanks to blogs now anyone can share their views without fear of having their advertising pulled for controversial statements.

Whether or not blogging is actually dissident media depends entirely on your point of view. On one side you have bloggers themselves, many of the most important of which see themselves as members of the mainstream. Markos Moulitsas, the head of the popular Daily Kos, was quoted as saying “we are representatives of the mainstream.” (Skube) This is countered by members of the more traditional media sources. The subtitle of the article by Michael Skube “the hard-line opinions on weblogs are no substitute for the patient fact-finding of reporters” sums up much of the opinion of traditional journalists towards bloggers. (Skube) Many of these journalists view bloggers as little more then political hacks ranting about whatever they fancy and with little care for facts or the other side of the argument.

However as blogs get more popular the idea that all of them are simply pointless opinionated rants is becoming increasingly untenable. There are now numerous examples where blogs do indeed go out and do their own investigative reporting. The instances of this occurring are far too numerous to mention, but include bloggers going to Iraq to report on the war effort, as well as attending and reporting on all of the political debates and campaigns.

In most cases bloggers are unable to obtain the necessary financial backing to perform in depth journalism. For many of them there role is largely in keeping politicians and the larger news organizations honest. This has been shown to be true in several high-profile cases during the relatively short period of the blogospheres existence. The Drudge Report was the first to break the infamous Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998. More recently Dan Rather was fired from 60 minutes when bloggers questioned the authenticity of several documents Rather used in one of his reports.

Blogging can be a double edged sword. Some would argue that it is the be all end all of modern media, as corporate owned outlets focus evermore on starlets and their troubles. While not necessarily focusing on the issues as much as they should, most mainstream media outlets portray their news from a relatively middle ground. Blogs on the other hand tend to be very one sided. Politically biased blogs such as the Daily Kos and Red State, which each have received 10’s of thousands of mentions and links from other bloggers, are the most popular. (Vargas) This means that instead of getting both sides of the story blogs help to intensify the polarization that exists between America’s political factions.

The case of whether or not blogging is dissident media completely depends on the individual blog itself. While the idea of the blogosphere itself breaking away from traditional media is in itself dissident, the fact that it is becoming so mainstream means the title of dissident media now varies from blog to blog. Blogs such as Politico and Technorati would be considered relatively mainstream because while they both provide good well researched information, they say little that would upset or go against the ideas of the mainstream. However blogs like the Daily Kos routinely have things posted that create great alarm for television commentators such as Bill O’Reilly. I believe the future of blogging is incredibly bright. Without the need for multi-million dollar studios they are able to bring the news to the people for far cheaper then television or radio. This allows them to be less reliant on massive amounts of add revenue and get back to focusing on important events.

The Good, The Bad, The Blog

2007-11-30T01:41:00.000-05:00

Blogging is media that is both enriching and detrimental. The blogosphere provides a public forum for the discussion and dissemination of ideas and experience across the broad range of human experience. It is a media that permeates everyday life and a crutch with which we rely on to supplement our increasingly large information appetites. Michael Skube quotes Christopher Lasch in his article “Blogs: All the noise that fits,” that “ ‘What democracy requires…is vigorous public debate, not information.”[1] Blogs are able to provide that public forum for debate, and also create the information that Lasch believes is needed. However, blogs also present a danger: they are unregulated without editors or fact-checkers. Steve Outing describes this in terms of ethics, “Part of the problem is lack of any community blogging standards that might discourage unseemly behavior.”[2] This is a sticking point with many blogs; how can we know if they are published in good faith? We cannot. This is a huge problem in the nascent blogosphere. As well, blogs may narrow our focus and allow us to pick and choose blogs that share our point of views. As blogs become increasingly prominent, they cause a slant in unbiased information, nearly eliminating it from the public domain. Though blogs allow for the sharing of ideas, they also represent a very real danger of disinformation.

The blogosphere has several huge advantages, especially concerned with dissident media. It is unregulated, allowing for the completely free expression of and access to all sorts of different ideas. Anyone with access to the computer can blog and extensive networks of people from across the globe can coalesce easily around a common cause and blog. In another Los Angeles Times article, Jay Rosen describes several blogs that do have investigative reporting, travel, and citizen involvement, “2005 to present. Citizens construct Katrina timeline…. [They] created a detailed timeline…with over 500 evens, fact-checked and sourced.”[3] Finally, it is incredibly cheap to blog. The only fee is Internet access, and the potential public is huge without publishing costs. “All you need to get started is a name, a password, and an email address,” describes Mallory Jensen in The New Age of Alternative Media[4]. This ease of access, and sometimes the anonymity, creates huge draws towards dissident blogs and brining those with opinions and facts that are often overlooked into the public forum. These advantages allow blogs to create a great deal of noise among the greater public, and provide greater access to the disenfranchised.

However, blogs also pose several problems not often associated with traditional forms of media, mainstream or dissident. One is the lack of editors and fact checkers. Without these vital personnel, other media outlets would fall to pieces around sloppy productions. People do not want to read, or see, productions riddled with mistakes or that are fabrications; editors provide the tools to make sure mistakes are kept to a minimum and that fabrications are rare. Blogs, unencumbered by editors, are able to publish more controversial items, but are also often mired in the realm of bad grammar, inappropriate words, and blatant propaganda, though this is not always the case, as explained above. As well, many blogs lack the resources and credibility of traditional media outlets (though this is slowly changing), which does not allow for very many in-depth articles or “serious” investigative journalist. In the article “Blogs: All the noise that fits” from the Los Angeles Times bloggers themselves reject this authoritative stance, “[They]—are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label ‘journalist,’ associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM (mainstream media)…”[5] Finally, the ease of access allows anyone to blog, including propagandists, the un-informed, and those who simply do not care about facts. This leads to a flooding of the blogosphere with useless information, again detracting from credibility.

Our blog, concerning changing the format of political debate, is a great case study for both the pros and cons of blogs and the blogosphere. The elements for a successful blog were all present: a current, controversial, and important topic, a clearly stated goal, and a diverse, intelligent, and vocal contributor base. Yet, the execution of the blog was not exactly spectacular. It was a slow upstart; often had too many posts that lack any sense of coherence, and did not often present a new take on the subject. Oftentimes, posts were treated as simple assignments, made to earn a grade, instead of as a post that could affect the greater debate. This casual treatment of the blog was its biggest downfall. Blogs that make noise, such as James Kotecki’s video postings, almost always began as low-budget, amateur projects. However, his blog especially, had an excitement about it, and took its subject matter in stride, and not as a school assignment. As well, our posts, though centered on a central question, often had a sense of incoherence. Topics varied greatly: from finance reform to the history of presidential debates to the role of music in campaigns. Though the topics made for an interesting read week to week, they did not allow for a huge furthering of the political de*-bate discussion. They presented various points of view and facts concerning the debate, but rarely engaged in any distillation or new ideas about the topic.

Despite these shortcomings, the class blog did have many positive aspects. The sheer amount of information gathered there allows readers to become informed about the various issues regarding the upcoming elections and the broken debate system. Additionally, the blog has the air and feel of student activism, always preferable in fermenting change than mainstream media. This falls in line with Matt Welch’s thinking about alternative press, “The papers once embraced amateur writers; now they are firmly establish in the journalist pecking order…[blogs] represent a crucial alternative to monolithic journalism establishment….”[6] We acted as new, amateur, young journalists, pulling facts together and posting our own ideas, creating excitement that was the hallmark of papers in the 1960s and 1970s (one only need read All The President’s Men). As well, as our tracking showed, we had an audience that did not consist entirely of class members. Though perhaps not as large as we would like, the impact our blog had on those readers cannot be underestimated. Like other dissident media, if it inspires just one other person to actively seek change, a snowball can occur and change can happen.

Blogging, though a new technology with many downsides, is the format of choice for new dissident media. It allows easy, widespread publication, the possibility of huge networks, and a lack of oversight that appeals to the marginalized and disenfranchised. Though it lacks some of the resources of earlier forms of media, professional editors and such, blogging offers a great deal of advantage for getting messages out, as Welch points out that bloggers have contributed, “Four things: personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge,” to journalism[7].

All sources are in-class, handouts provided by Professor Dana Walker.

[1] Paragraph 8, “Blogs: All the noise that fits,” by Michael Skube

[2] Paragraph 20, “What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists,” by Steve Outing

[3] Paragraph 22, “The journalism that bloggers actually do,” by Jay Rosen

[4] Page 22, The New Age of Alternative Media, “A Brief History of Weblogs,” by Mallory Jensen

[5] Paragraph 3, “Blogs: All the noise that fits,” by Michael Skube

[6] Page 21, The New Age of Alternative Media, “Blogworld and its Gravity: The New Amateur Journalist Weigh In,” by Matt Welch.

[7] Page 24 The New Age of Alternative Media, “Blogworld and its Gravity: The New Amateur Journalist Weigh In,” by Matt Welch.

Blogging Is Dissident

2007-11-30T01:35:00.000-05:00

Jack Weingart
Dissident Media
Professor Walker
30 November 2007

Blogging is Dissident

Blogging has been around since the early days of the Internet, but during the new millennium it has become quite the phenomenon and has gained tremendous power and influence. Today, there are upwards of 27 million blogs in the world (Luman). This is a vast increase from the mere dozens that existed less than 10 years ago. (Welch 22). There are few reasons as to why this phenomenon has become so popular. Mainstream media is no longer delivering quality news. Mainstream journalists are not doing the investigative reporting that is necessary, and people are unsatisfied with what they are reading and hearing. Many feel as though they are not getting all the facts. This is especially true after September 11 (Welch 24). A Pew Research center poll showed that more than half of Americans say U.S. news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don’t care about the people they report on (“Poll:”). True dissident blogging came about as this disapproval and distrust with mainstream media peaked after 9/11. Blogs are dissident when they offer views that are different from those found in mainstream media. According to Rodger Streitmatter, author of Voices of Revolution-The Dissident Press in America, for something to be dissident it also needs to “seek to change society in some discernible way” (xi). It can be argued that many blogs are in fact dissident because they promote social change and advocate a certain cause. Many bloggers are new-age activists, and blogging is a great example of modern day dissident media.

Many people believe that blogging is not a form of journalism or dissident media. I boldly disagree. Of course not all blogs are accurate, but this also applies to mainstream media sources. Henry R. Luce defined journalism as the “art of collecting varying kinds of information (commonly called ‘news’), which a few people possess, and of transmitting it to a much larger number of people who are supposed to desire to share it” (Walker). This definition defies the claim that blogging is not journalism. Daily, even hourly, bloggers are collecting accurate information and posting it on their blogs for millions of people to read. Many bloggers refuse to be labeled a journalist, however, for the reason that it relates too closely to mainstream media. Many prefer the term citizen journalist because it reflects their standing in society and also their purpose. As Jose Antonio Vargas explains, “Citizen journalism is bringing folks, young and old, into the public square, giving voice to those who, in the pre-Internet era, may have felt voiceless” (Vargas). Blogging has provided an outlet, a voice and a tool to connect and inform people across the world with accurate information. This characteristic makes blogging both a form of journalism and dissident media.

Blogging came about not only as trust in mainstream media decreased, but while a hunger for connection and community increased. Like many other things, the blogosphere was forever changed on September 11, 2001. In that weary time, many people wanted to share their personal stories. This country was divided, and blogging allowed people to share intelligent discourse and to connect. Furthermore, people were not satisfied with what mainstream media was reporting. People wanted context, personable and accurate news. Blogs are an alternative source and have contributed personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge to journalism (Welch 24).

It can be argued that some blogs are inaccurate or too opinionated, but just like with anything that you read, you must look at the sources and decipher fact from opinion. Michael Skube, a journalism professor at Elon University, believes a blogger’s sole interest is in expressing an opinion quickly and pungently (Skube). Skube claims that blogs don’t do: “the patient sifting of fact, the acknowledgement that assertion is not evidence… the depiction of real life” (Rosen). This is an ignorant statement. NYU professor Jay Rosen provides evidence of numerous dissident blogs that have tediously reported on critical issues. Several examples include the national network of sites for pet owners who were frustrated with the limitations of the news media, and wanted to share news about tainted foods during the pet-food scandal of June 2007; former Green Beret and independent journalist Michael Yon’s blog report from Iraq; and the gourmet food blog, DallasFood.org, which provided the only in-depth investigation into Noka Chocolate’s deceptive marketing practices (Rosen). Our class blog is another perfect example where bloggers did original reporting and posted accurate information. Bloggers do not necessarily care what you call them, but as Rosen says, “They do care if their story stands up” (“Journalism”). This is a true characteristic of dissident media; to represent a lone voice and to seek change.

There are numerous other examples and reasons why blogging is a form of dissident media. Political blogs, for instance, have tremendous power when it comes to the upcoming presidential election. Blogging is an expression of dissident action. Intelligent political discourse on blogs is opening up the floor to debate and getting the attention from candidates and mainstream media. For example, take alternative political video blogger James Kotecki. He began video blogging on Youtube in late 2007 about the Democratic and Republican forerunners in the race for the White House. Through video blogging, Kotecki was hoping to establish a “two-way” conversation between voters and candidates. To date, Dennis Kucinich, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, John Edwards and John McCain have responded online to Kotecki’s blog. Mainstream news outlets like CNN and Fox News have picked up on his success (“James Kotecki”). Voters are interacting with candidates at an unprecedented level due to the Internet. There are blogs that support candidates, and there are blogs that oppose candidates. There are also blogs that report on and advocate for certain issues; the Iraq war, illegal immigration, etc.

It is true that many political blogs are mostly rants and opinions. But like some of the dissident blogs already mentioned, there are a fair share of political bloggers that do their own original investigating and report accurate news. Citizen journalist Faye Anderson says that blogging is “her entry into the political process, a way for ‘an outsider like me to play some sort of role’” (Vargas). Anderson blogs about illegal immigration, and more recently about the Jena Six case. She began blogging about the racial conflict surrounding the small Louisiana town long before mainstream media picked up the story. She praises black bloggers and black radio for closely following the case (Vargas). Without black bloggers and black radio following it, who knows if that story would have ever made its way to mainstream media? Her dissident blog is a modern day version of Robert S. Abbot’s Chicago Defender. Both revealed uncompromising documentation of acts of racial persecution in the South.

Blogging has really just begun to take hold, and only time will tell how successful it will be. It is without a doubt, however, a modern day dissident media source. It provides a platform for alternative ideas, and many people use blogging to try and change society in a discernible way. I began this course weary about blogging. I had no idea what it was, or its vast influence. After spending a semester blogging and reading other blogs, I now see why they are influential and can be considered dissident. I think it is ignorant to believe all blogs are not accurate because every blog, like all mainstream media sources, varies in accuracy. “They are diaries and soapboxes, where people can post everything from daily minutiae to manifestoes to sophisticated political and cultural commentary and reporting” (Welch 22). Blogs are dissident when they offer views different from those of the conventional press and when they seek to change society. Many blogs out there have a purpose. Take our class blog, for instance, which is seeking to renew political debate and change politics as we know it. Faye Anderson’s blog, Anderson at Large, also has a purpose. She blogs about important issues such as illegal immigration and the Jena Six case. These blogs are revealing, candid and seek to change society by presenting facts and offering proposals to improve conditions.

The loss of variation and corporate bias surrounding mainstream media today has driven many people to the blogosphere to find their news. A journalist is one who brings news to the public, and that is exactly what bloggers are doing. They have become the new watchdogs of democracy as they act as defenders and a voice for the common man. Bloggers label themselves as citizen journalists. It is not just by coincidence that citizen journalism can be linked back to the antiwar, counterculture dissident presses that flourished in the 1960s (Vargas). Blogging is dissident media’s shape and form in the 21^st century. The good thing is that it looks like it is here to stay. Publishing dissident presses in the past has proven to be both difficult to produce and distribute due to expenses. There are limitless boundaries on the Internet. Blogs are affordable, easily accessible and simple to create.

*I tried to post the works cited, but every time it wouldn't let me publish the post due to an error.

Blogging and its Contributions to Media

2007-11-30T01:24:00.000-05:00

Blogging permeates daily life for people throughout the world. For me the in-class experience was my first confrontation with blogging. Blogging is a new and different form of media, in sharp contrast to more established elements of media such as investigative journalism, or broadcast journalism. Working for CNN or the New York Times requires different tools and skills than blogging. Blogging may at first appear to be less of an art form and more of a forum for ridiculous emotion and absurd revenge as described by Michael Skube in Blogs: All the Noise That Fits, “The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disruption, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.” (Skube, 1) However, upon closer inspection blogging proves itself to be a useful form of journalistic endeavor.

Placing one’s thoughts onto the internet is a scary process. Thousands of random people now have access to one’s personal opinions and inner musings. When James Kotecki spoke to our Dissident Media class in September, he mentioned one of the difficulties of blogging was adjusting to some individual’s angry and often cruel comments. Our blog was largely limited to other student’s comments, thus mean and hurtful comments were rare or nonexistent. Despite this, it was still difficult putting our opinions out in the open, where, at least in theory, anyone can read our thoughts.

Though it was difficult to place our personal thoughts on the internet, it was a great learning experience, especially in journalistic terms. The live blog provided an introduction into real reporting. The majority of our blogs were based off reflections on others’ reportings, findings, or stories but the live blog allowed us to write our own article.

Though I enjoyed the blogging experience there are some disadvantages to blogging. In an article entitled What Bloggers Can Learn from Journalists, Steve Outing discusses some of the assets journalists have that bloggers could learn. For example, an editor is a key link in the journalistic process. The majority of blogs available on the internet lack the editorial polish. “The principal difference between traditional journalists and the vast majority of bloggers is: an editor. The lack of one is one of the charms of blogging of course… its fast; its creative; its different from mainstream journalism. But having an editor involved… is a brilliant idea, even for solo bloggers.” (Outing, 1) In our class, there was no editor. The lack of editorial help created an interesting paradox; while our thoughts and opinions were laid bare on the internet without gloss, there were often simple grammatical and spelling errors. Though grammatical and spelling errors are not the central point of a blog, without their presence a blog appears considerably more professional. As Outing states, “An extra pair of eyes can certainly help catch spelling, grammar, and factual errors…” (Outing, 1) If ours and other blogs learn to utilize editors, if only to add that editorial polish, the blog could appear significantly more professional.

Another disadvantage to blogging is the lack of professional in many blogs. While some blogs such as Wonkette appear very professional, many amateur blogs are written by individuals who simply want to make some noise no matter whether their writing is true, untrue, moral, or immoral. Often one has to dig through substantial amounts of garbage in order find some gold where blogs are concerned. This weakness however may just be a result of the internet’s pervasiveness.

Though blogs often lack a sense of professionalism, there are many advantages to blogs. In Outing’s article What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers he quotes the author of Wonkette, “It’s impossible to maintain privileged information in an environment where anyone can instantly publish leaked information to a potential worldwide audience on the Web.” (Outing, 2) This quote demonstrates the impossibility of hiding information in today’s information-loaded world. In Jay Rosen’s article in the L.A Times, The Journalism That Bloggers Actually Do, he notes several cases where journalists have either broken or continued to follow a story till the end. An excellent example given is Firedoglake in March 2007 covering the Scooter Libby scandal, “Popular lefty political blog provides the only blow-by-blow coverage of the trial by splitting the work among six contributors who bring big knowledge to bear for a committed-to-the-case readership. Reporters come to rely on the blog for its updates and its accuracy in live-blogging and analysis.” (Rosen, 1) Again, this quote demonstrates not only the impossibility of hiding information in today’s world; it also demonstrates the role bloggers are playing in pushing news to the fore-front.

Another advantage to blogging is its ability to create a new ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Blogging provides an opportunity for many underprivileged people to express their ideas to the world. Like town halls in previous times, the internet is now a place for millions of people to share their thoughts and ideas, for debates to take place.

Blogs also have a connection to Stephen D. Brookfield’s article The Power of Critical Theory. Many bloggers goals involve challenging idealogy, contesting hegemony and unmasking power. (Brookfield, 40) By breaking stories which may otherwise have remained hidden bloggers incorporate all of these tasks. They unmask the power of those attempting to hide the story by breaking it. Many challenge ideology by presenting dissenting views, and many contest hegemony bys simply putting their opinions out in the public forum.

Though blogging has several serious disadvantages, blogging is still a crucial form of media. It has allowed millions of people to communicate with one another all across the globe. The blogosphere has created a modern-day ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Blogging has allowed countless amateur journalists to grow and break important stories that may otherwise have not been told. It may sometimes take some searching, but the good blogs that can be uncovered are certainly worth the search.

Blogging for Dissident Media:

2007-11-30T00:10:00.000-05:00

Before taking Dissident Media, I had no interest in blogging. The only blogs I looked at were things my friends posted on facebook or myspace, and I rarely glanced at those. I was turned off to blogging more and more of my friends started to post diary entries on the web—I really did not care what they had for breakfast, how much they hated their parents, or what CD they just bought.
After having blogged for a while, I gained more respect for bloggers, and I realized that blogs can be more that rants and diary entries. Putting out opinions when they are contrary to the accepted beliefs is hard. Remembering to post regularly and trying to stay interesting is tricky as well. When writing blogs for class, I often found it hard to not say the same thing every blog. I wanted to try to say what I thought while staying on topic, without ranting about everything I believed for pages.
As a class, our goal was to change the structure of presidential elections so that debates would focus on the issues instead of which candidate can create the best sound byte for the evening news. While we have not seen any changes in the system directly linked to our blog, I bet we all developed a much deeper understanding the issue. We also learned how to blog and how bloggers influence the political arena. As we were studying dissident media, it was interesting that we were trying to participate in dissidence ourselves. Did we succeed and become part of dissident journalism in our blogging to promote political debate?
The topic of our blog, promoting political debate, in it of itself was not dissident. Most people would say that discussing issues before an election is beneficial. Free speech and open debate are part of America’s charm. The idea that a candidate can be elected based upon their ideas instead of their fame is quixotic, but still part of the ideal American dream. From Lincoln gaining status because of his debates with Douglas to Kennedy charming America with the first televised debate, we like that candidates can try to earn votes with good ideas. Therefore, trying to promote debate is not dissident because it is part of a widely accepted ideology.
What makes a publication dissident when the topic is not inherently dissident? Were we dissident by using a different form of communications than mainstream media? It could be that we were dissident simply by blogging—“the medium the message,” as Marshall McLuhan said (qtd. in Walker). If that is the case, even mainstream media is dissident because every news website from the New York Times to CBS has a blog to call their own.
The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies defined alternative a specific brand of liberal which included being “anti-church,” as Matt Welch examined in his article “Blogworld and its Gravity” (21). It could be that dissidence comes from supporting specific ideologies. I do not think that this applies to us because even though we were a fairly typical college class, we had enough variance in opinions that we would not fall under that definition of dissident. Also, this is an unsatisfactory definition of dissidence because among the dissident presses we studied, many of them disagreed on everything with each other.
In Streitmatter’s Voices of Revolution, the only common cause or uniting belief connecting dissident publications was that something was wrong with our world. All were trying to promote social change, in whatever way they thought was best. From the suffrage movement to gay rights and from forming unions to empowering blacks, the dissident journalists we looked at “labored on the social frontier, clearing new ground and sowing new ideas… to bring about the social change that drove their very being” (xiii).
If by our blogging, we were simply trying to promote political debate, we were not dissident. However, we were advocating changing the whole debate structure—we were trying to change the system. We were trying to find ways to change the debate system so that politicians would need to debate to be a viable candidate and that voters would want to watch the debates to make informed decisions for elections, thus making our nation a better place. Because we were trying to reform society, we were dissident.
We as a class were dissident, but that does not mean we were journalists. One of the main issues with blogs in today’s society is whether bloggers should be considered journalists. There is a tension between journalism and blogging. At times, the mainstream media tries to say that bloggers are not journalists. For example, Michael Skube’s described the blogosphere as “the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like posting and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined,” and implies that bloggers are incapable of reporting (Skube).
Skube does not offer the only viewpoint concerning bloggers. Bloggers have contributed “personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge” to journalism, according to Welsh (24).
As a class, I would say that we were not journalists regarding our blog. Most of our posts were either musings about our own ideas or commentary on news from the mainstream media. While our opinions were valid and our ideas worthwhile, we did not do our own investigations, with the exception of the long blog post. We added personality and editorial filtering, but very little eyewitness testimony or new knowledge. We were part of dissident media, but not journalists.
However, I think that us offering our dissident opinions fits very well into the world of blogging. We live in a postmodern world where the opinions of the average citizen is worth just as much as the opinion of an expert and Youtube and Wikipedia hold much more sway that a lot of other resources to the average citizen. For the purpose of our blog, discussing our experiences and current events was enough.

Blogging as a form of dissident media*

2007-11-29T17:30:00.000-05:00

Tony Romm

November 27, 2007

COMM-275 Dissident Media

Blogging and Dissident Media

Introduction
Accurately proclaimed as the most egalitarian media to date, the internet has certainly changed the way consumers interact with their news. But according to Rodger Streitmatter, author of Voices of Revolution, “Several of the Internet’s traits have particularly stunning implications for the dissident press” (281).
Indeed, the ubiquity of the World Wide Web has allowed progressive thinkers to communicate their views with an international audience, a luxury that dissident journalists of decades past clearly lacked. But to what extent is the blog, arguably the most decentralized and least structured of the news types, a form of dissident media? Throughout the semester, our class has maintained a blog that analyzes the insufficiency of present political discourse; yet, can we accurately label our efforts dissident? This paper analyzes the practice of blogging as a form of dissident media, with an emphasis on our own efforts. It first presents a definition of dissident media, and then analyzes the viability of blogging as a form of dissident media. Finally, it offers a reflection of our Talk Monkey blog and the ways that future writers could improve it.
Blogging as a form of dissident media
“Dissident media” is certainly a difficult phrase to define. But Streitmatter makes, perhaps, the most comprehensive pass at it: “Indeed, in order for a publication to merit the mantle of “dissident”… it not only [has] to offer a differing view of society but also [has] to seek to change society in some discernible way (x-xi).
Concerning Streitmatter’s first condition, bloggers are inherent critics of journalism. In the tradition of critical theory, they effectively deconstruct traditional journalism by questioning its ideology, unmasking its power and challenging its hegemony (Broofield 39).
For example, blogs often avoid the inverted-pyramid, recognizing how mechanized reporting – arguably, the ideology of the journalism machine -- bores and fails to engage readers. Bloggers are also quick to assert their decentralization; unlike some mainstream media, blogs are citizen-owned Web sites, not corporate-driven conglomerates, and power is in the hands of the readers. And bloggers aren’t necessarily degree-holding journalism graduate students. True, some of the best bloggers are academics and professionals, but blogging is a democratic process, not a privilege reserved for the most educated.
That a considerable number of blogs embrace these alternate approaches to news out of laziness is to be expected. In his scathing August 2007 column, Los Angeles Times writer Michael Skube rebukes the bloggers’ “euphemistic” attempts to criticize and reinvigorate the national conversation, writing, “One gets the uneasy sense that the blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more… Skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background -- these would not seem to be a blogger's trademarks” (Skube, “Blogs: All the noise that fits”).
To a degree, Skube is correct; unbridled, warrantless “armchair opinion” contributes nothing to the national dialog and undermines the blog’s power as a form of dissidence. Yet, one of bloggers’ main criticisms of more structured journalism is that there is little to no emotion in what is written or broadcast. As a result, critics argue, fewer Americans willingly consume news. A “loosening of the grip on editorial employees' personal lives [is] a way to better connect journalist and reader,” thus posits Steve Outing of the Poynter Institute, as a way “to forge a stronger relationship between them and… readers” (“What journalists can learn from bloggers”).
Furthermore, not every blog is dissident, and for Skube to treat all blogs as such oversimplifies the medium. Indeed, remember the second condition in Streitmatter’s aforementioned definition: Blogs are effective forms of dissident media only if they seek to change society in some discernible way. Not every blog fulfills that role.
A perfect example is the American media’s coverage of September 11, 2001. Like many of the nation’s esteemed newspapers and networks that scrambled to make palpable the tragedy 9/11, The Boston Globe opened its article, “Noon Attack on America,” with a parallel: “The twin towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed this morning after two airplanes crashed into them, in what President Bush described as a terrorist attack. The raid, followed by attacks in Washington, far overshadowed the Oklahoma City bombings, and prompted comparisons to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (Barnard and Kowalczyk A1)
Of course, the underlying assumption behind the Globe’s lead was that the terrorist attacks were wholly unexpected. But as Washington Post writer R. Jeffery Smith reported nearly two years after the World Trade Center collapsed, “Analysts warned of potential attacks by unspecified terrorists in New York and California, and by operatives of Osama bin Laden somewhere in the United States.” (A14) His seminal article then detailed the various reports counterterrorism agencies submitted to Washington politicians and bureaucrats months prior to the attacks.
Certainly, the federal government erred Americans in the weeks leading up to 9/11, but had the American media committed an equally inexcusable failure? According to Matt Welch’s “Blog World and its Gravity,” “The destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon created a huge appetite on the part of the public to be part of ‘The Conversation’… Many, too, were unsatisfied with what they read and saw in the mainstream media.” (24). To an extent, Welch later argues, Americans soon embraced the blog as both an outlet for news production and consumption, picking up mainstream media’s slack.
It would thus seem that bloggers, in a way not unlike the dissident journalists of decades past, filled a void created by traditional journalism’s failures. Running counter to mainstream media forces and broadcasting a message that sought to alter the way “MSM’s” covered daily life, some of these blogs formed a dissident ‘fifth estate’ that seemed determined to check the once unquestionable authority of big name newspapers and networks.
Indeed, Skube argues that bloggers’ investigative abilities pale in comparison to what traditional media can do. Again, he is correct; blogs often lack the financial capacity and manpower to produce content comparable in its depth to mainstream counterpart. But as Jay Rosen writes in his equally scathing L.A. Times response column, bloggers have debuted a number of stories mainstream media has missed. In fact, Rosen includes 14 instances of “Blog sites doing exactly what [Skube] says blog sites don't do: ‘the patient sifting of fact, the acknowledgment that assertion is not evidence ... the depiction of real life’” (“Blowback”).
To that extent are blogs adequate forms of dissident media. Offering an alternative view of society and seeking to ferment a discernible change within it, blogs are merely a more technological version of its printed, dissident predecessors.

Conclusions: Our Talk Monkey blog
But with a better understanding of blogging as a form of dissidence, we can certainly analyze our own efforts. From the start, the class was somewhat conscious of its goals in relation to Streitmatter’s definition of dissident media; our frustration with the presidential debate system’s inadequacies motivated our desires for change, and we believed we could best affect that change using the written word.

For the most part, our content effectively embodied that aim, and the diversity in our viewpoints further emphasized the blog’s underlying message. Aspirations aside, we occasionally legitimized Skube’s nasty criticisms. Some students’ posts were little more than “armchair” editorials that insufficiently rebuked a point already developed by mainstream media. Other times, our relative inexperience with blogging relegated us to rehashing what another blog or media source said. Original content was equally scarce; covering news is still uncharted territory for bloggers, and most of our work embodied those subconscious uncertainties and fears.
But a few shortcomings do not resign our blog to failure. Dissident publications are the hardest to manage and maintain; all of the alternative newspapers in Streitmatter’s text, for example, faced a seemingly insurmountable uphill battle, a fight for a devoted readers and advertisers that few publications won. Even successful and widely circulated dissident media had little to brag about upon conception, as it often took years for publications to secure name recognition and arguably longer to affect a “discernible change” in society.
Our blog faced similar obstacles. Although Streitmatter correctly posits that the internet allows for unparalleled user interconnectivity, cheaper publishing and faster news production (281), our blog was merely one Web site floating in an infinitely deep sea of information. We produced content for about two months – a relatively short time – and while we did manage to pique the interest of informed readers as far away as India, our blog’s relative infancy was indeed preclusive. In some sense, the internet initially worked against us.
Still, the vastness of the internet, the technological marketplace of ideas, gives dissident publications like our own some hope. And if the Web is as truly egalitarian as academics like Strietmatter assert, we need not worry about the future of the national conversation.

Works Cited

Anne Barnard, Liz Kowalczyk. "Noon Attack on America." Boston Globe 11 September 2001:

A1.

Brookfield, Stephen D. The Power of Critical Theory. Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Rosen, Jay. "Blowback: The journalism that bloggers actually do." Los Angeles Times 22

August 2007.

Skube, Michael. "Blogs: All the noise that fits." Los Angeles Times 19 August 2007.

Smith, R. Jeffrey. "A History of Missed Connections." Washington Post 25 July 2005: A14.

Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.

Welch, Matt. ""Blogworld and its Gravity"." Colombia Journalism Review (2003): 24.

*A special thanks to Chris for catching my heinous spelling error*

Blog Paper

2007-11-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

Anna Eisenberg

Professor Walker

Dissident Media

November 30^th, 2007

The Rising Importance of Blogging

In the modern world of two thousand and seven, everyone is in the know. People who can barely afford a meal every day have televisions, cell phones, even computers. With new inventions like the iPhone, people can listen to music, talk on the phone and check their email all with the same device. This new age of technology, which allows even the most average of Joe’s to have access to information, is greatly affecting the news media. Because the Internet is so widely accessible, people can learn about the news any time of day. Now that blogs exist, anyone can become a journalist and publish what they believe is newsworthy. Blogging is becoming increasingly important, and is something that should be further examined and analyzed.

The first order of business is to define a blog. What is a blog? A blog “is usually defined as a Web site where information is updated frequently and presented in reverse chronological order (newest stuff on top).” (The New Age of Alternative Media) Another aspect of blogging that must be defined is the blogworld or blogosphere, where all blogs exist. Though the blogosphere is “too large and too varied to be defined as a single thing,” it can be considered to be the entire network of blogs and blogposts.

In the recent past, newspapers were the typical bearers of the goings-on of the world. In this modern world, newspapers have become a thing of the past and given rise to the Internet – the fastest way to get news. The Internet of course leads to blogging. Blogging is certainly having an impact on the world of news, as famous and highly read newspapers like The Washington Post are making new arrangements to welcome this new type of communication. Many companies are “implementing a plan that calls for a merge [of newspaper and online operations] into single unites – no side-by-side operations anymore.” (PublicEye) Blogging is clearly becoming a significant factor in news.

The concept of blogging is becoming a hotly debated topic because many people juxtapose it with typical journalism. Blogging can be considered a type of journalism, though it certainly does not follow the same rules. In fact, when writing a blog one must “get rid of the idea that [one] must have everything nailed down, organized, and edited before [publishing].” (Poynteronline) This is exactly what journalists must do before they publish an article. News articles are carefully planned and edited before going out to the public.

Blogging, or more specifically live-blogging, completely ignores these standard rules. Live-bloggers are doing exactly what their name suggests – writing a blog in real time so that their readers can view the post immediately. This completely bypasses the entire planning and editing phases and is more raw and undisciplined.

This new and creative form of journalism has been both lauded and criticized. Many people consider blogs to be diary entries that are open to the public. Others consider it to be what journalism has evolved into. One of the criticisms of blogging has been that “bloggers have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations.” (Blogs: All the noise that fits) This refers to the fact that bloggers are able to publish whatever they so wish without having to worry about what all journalists are careful to avoid: libel. Many people feel that this new type of journalism is not broadening the “national conversation.” (Blogs: All the noise that fits) In other words, blogging is simply more noise that the public must wade through in order to get to the real news.

Some people hate blogging, others welcome it with open arms. No matter the person’s feelings toward this new trend, the fact remains that blogging is here to stay and is working as a highly influential force in the world of news media. Blog aficionados have said, “In a media world that’s otherwise leached of opinions and life, there’s so much life in them.” (The New Age of Alternative Media) Another important part of blogs is that “they are speaking truth to power.” (PublicEye) In other words, blogs are part of what define dissident media and are a rising force in the world of news media.

Works Cited

Blogs: All the noise that fits. Los Angeles Times, 19 August 2007

Poynteronline. 5 September 2007.

PublicEye. 5 January 2007.

The New Age of Alternative Media. “Blogworld and its gravity.”

Debates Losing Focus of Meaning

2007-11-05T19:17:00.000-05:00

With officially less than a year until the Presidential elections, things are starting to get serious. That is of course everything but the political debates. Last Tuesday the Democrats held another political debate in Philadelphia, the birthplace of democracy. There have already been a handful of debates, but this was by far the most annoying.

Although, Edwards and Obama started targeting Clinton, and there was serious talk about Iraq and Iran, I cannot help but feel frustrated by the last 30 minutes of the debate. Tim Russert, from Meet the Press, and Brian Williams, host of the Nightly News on NBC, held what they called, a “Lighting Round.” Perhaps, you are not familiar with this, but it is when the candidates are giving thirty seconds to answer a question. Besides the fact that they never stay in within the time limit, this is not an adequate amount time to answer a question. Another problem that I have with the “Lighting Round” is that the questions given during this time are always the same. There is always and environmental or social security issue addressed during this time. Both which are very important to many voters. I do not understand why they cannot mix up which topics receive the main focus in each debate. Devoting only 30 seconds to the environment does not allow the voter to make an informed decision, let alone solve the problem of global warming.

One other thing that truly bothers me is the attempt in the closing minutes to lighten up the mood. While I do not think that is a bad thing the questions and comments made here are inappropriate. On Tuesday, Dennis Kucinich was asked if he really saw an UFO, after it being reported in a book that he did. Then Obama was asked what he was going to on Halloween. While, these questions are fun and entertaining they belong on Oprah and Larry King.

Trick or Treat comes early for DC Votes

2007-11-02T09:36:00.000-04:00

On a clear, windy morning in downtown Washington DC, the members of DC Votes changed into their halloween costumes a few hours earlier than most trick or treaters in the city. Near the corner of G St. and 41st, just a few blocks away from the White House, the DC Votes crew set up shop in front of Sen. John McCain's office building and put on hippo costumes. No, no, you read that right, hippos. They were there protesting John McCain's filibuster of legislation S. 1257, which would, if passed through the Senate, provide the District with a voting member in the House of Representatives for the first time, well, ever.
"Stop the hippo-crisy!" their signs read, as they paced outside of McCain's office building, turning heads on G St. as they chanted "hippos follow hypocrites!" and "we want democracy, not hypocrisy!" The DC Votes workers' basis for calling McCain a hypocrite seems fairly legitimate. He has supported continuously to send troops to Iraq to spread democracy in a foreign country, while he denies the most basic aspect of democracy, the right to vote, for DC residents. "He voted against even talking about DC voting rights in the Senate," said Kevin Kiger, a DC Votes worker and a District resident.
According to the DC Votes workers this is the first of many protest to come where, hippo costumes or not, other senators will be called out for their stance against DC's right to vote.

Political Debate the American Way

2007-11-02T09:14:00.000-04:00

While we often discuss our opinions on political debate within our Dissident Media class, I thought it would be interesting to see what other American University students felt about the upcoming election, political debate, and blogging as a political outlet.

I surveyed thirty students, slightly more girls than boys, which coincides with the ratio at American University. The age range was 18-21, all citizens of age to vote. All of these students had watched a presidential debate on television before, while only eleven follow these debates moderately or closely. Even so, results and news stories that result from these debates greatly affect students; only six people said the presidential debates have absolutely no influence on their ballot in November. The lack of interest in political debates might have to do with young people's perceptions of politicians; only five students feel the majority of candidates are relatable to the average American and not just acting fake in order to get good publicity for their campaign. Opinions were split exactly down the middle over whether the current format for political debate was too structured. It is possible that these students were not informed enough to answer this question though, seeing as barely any regularly follow presidential debates. The general consensus seems to be, at least within this batch of randomly selected American University Students, that young people just aren’t that emerged in the presidential race. Just sixteen of these students were registered to vote, barely more than half. The main problems seems to be the absence of a candidate that enthralls and inspires America’s youth, the kind of candidate that would make young adults follow the election.

Upon drawing this conclusion, just for interest’s sake, I wanted to see if our blog could have any impact on the political views of these students. However, my findings were dismal. Only eight students had ever visited a political blog before. In fact, a total of only seventeen students had ever browsed through any type of blog on the internet. The top three media outlets these students receive political information from are newspapers, mainstream television news (CNN, Fox), and additional television programs such as The Colbert Report or talk shows. Most students showed little interest when I explained my survey and considerable confusion at a blog as a class assignment.

I am not sure what it takes to get young adults more involved in the political process. We seem to be under ideal circumstances at American University; we live in our nation’s capital that is filled to the brim with internship opportunities and attend a private university with amazing government and international relations programs. If students do not have the time to participate in the election here, I can only imagine how my survey would have gone over at another school.

Planetary Emergency

2007-11-02T02:36:00.000-04:00

Have a boat? If not, you're going to need it, we're in a "planetary emergency" according to former Vice President Al Gore. With the ice-caps melting and the potential of mass flooding, there is going to be a serious global problem if we don't act soon. These are some of messages presented by the former Vice-President at his countless speeches, tours, concerts, books not to mention his Academy Award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth. This past weekend, the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded Mr. Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Ok great - Gore loves trees, we get it, but what does this really mean? I decided to attend the Beyond An Inconvenient Truth event hosted by the Alpha Kappa Psi Business Fraternity and the Climate Project (TCP), a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing awareness on the climate crisis. After seeing Gore’s film, I was interested to see what additional information the event could provide and how this information could be applied to today’s political debate. Experts from the organization, Chester and Donna Joy served as experts in the field of environmental policy and answered a series of questions following their presentation. They provided AU students with tips on how they can be a part of the movement, and how seem

ingly small changes in daily habits could have a global effect. Here's their top ten ways to stop global warming:

Change a light Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
Drive less Walk, bike, carpool or take mass transit more often. You’ll save one pound of carbon dioxide for every mile you don’t drive!
Recycle more You can save 2.400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste.
Check your tires Keeping your tires inflated properly can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere!
Use less hot water It takes a lot of energy to heat water. Use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of CO2 saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year).
Avoid products with a lot of packaging You can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide if you cut down your garbage by 10%.
Adjust your thermostat Moving your thermostat just 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer you could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.
Plant a tree A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.
Turn off electronic devices Simply turning off your television, DVD player, stereo, and computer when you’re not using them will save you thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
Spread the word!

This event showed the true value Al Gore has brought to the movement, and countless others that have contributed to stopping global warming. Almost everything you see is turning Green. Top companies are picking up on the importance of this social cause and have changed their policies to adapt. Take a look at GE’s Ecomagination, a site purely dedicated to educating its visitors to the importance of energy conservation. Even our Facebook profiles proclaim our environmental awareness, I am Green. It's time for the presidential candidates to take action and firmly present a plan on how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and prevent further global warming. Who know's, if the candidates don't act fast it wouldn't be surprising to see Al Gore jump into the race, he already has 200,000+ supporters dedicated to making him the next president.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

2007-11-02T02:20:00.000-04:00

For the second year now American University has had their own Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) club which has been actively working with other chapters and the national office alike to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions set on drugs and even push for the possible legalization of drugs. Students for Sensible Drug Policy is an international grassroots network of students who are concerned about the impact drug abuse has on our communities, but who also know that the War on Drugs is failing our generation and our society, alike.

Being so close to the national SSDP office I have had ample time to talk with all the faculty members about various aspects of their political work. Micah, the field director for SSDP, told me about some of SSDP's more impressive and recent changes to the political sphere. For instance, Congress passed the Higher Education Act Aid Elimination Penalty in 1998 which would insure that any students who were caught with drugs or had drug related offenses could lose all their financial aid for something as small as one single joint. SSDP mobilized 125 student governments to voice their opposition to the unjust policy, and lobbied Congress. As a result, the penalty no longer applies to those who are convicted of drug crimes while they are not in college and receiving financial aid. In other words, if a high school student or a person taking time off from school is convicted, their aid will not be affected when they return to school.

However, according to Kris Krane, the director of SSDP's national office, this small victory is not the victory he wanted. Krane hopes that by the end of this year with all the congressional meetings that the Higher Education Act Aid Elimination Penalty will be completely repealed so despite and aforementioned trouble with drugs the student will still have the opportunity and ability to remain in college if they like.

Legislation like this is not productive for our country either for the individual or the collective. In a society that is becoming increasingly dependent on the benefits of a college education and maybe even graduate school there seems to be little or no justification for taking away anyone's financial aid. Especially over something like them smoking a joint when the convicted rapist sitting next to them in class is still eligible for their financial aid benefits. By taking away an individual's right to education by taking away their means of educating themselves (the money) society is not only punishing them but dooming them to an entirely different life based on one 'bad' decision.

Many times, as a club member, people ask me what is the difference between SSDP and NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and surprisingly enough I found out from Micah that many people ask him similar questions. "When SSDP works on marijuana policy reform, it is part of an effort to attack drug prohibition in its entirety. This is because SSDP is concerned with the government's prohibitionist approach to many drugs, and not just marijuana. In addition to lobbying for changes in marijuana policy, SSDP chapters work toward such goals as repealing the law that automatically denies financial aid to college students with drug convictions, and stopping high schools from implementing random student drug testing. Our main objective is to work on drug policies that particularly affect youth and students, whether those policies involve marijuana, alcohol, or other substances." -Micah & Kris

As awareness begins to arise around SSDP in both the AU community and nationally I can only hope that everyone who is interested can get involved and help change the current policies aligned with all sorts of substances.

2007-11-02T01:17:00.000-04:00

Last night, AU’s School of Communication hosted an environmental awareness lecture and film screening with Cathy Malani of the Human Society of the United States. Malani, who was promoted to head of the investigation department, travels the world working to protect animals via shooting, editing and producing muckraking short films and public service announcements that she posts on the Humane Society’s website. Prior to last night’s speech, Malani was traveling around southern California rescuing animals from recent wildfires and led a bust in a cockfighting ring in San Diego.
“The recent Michael Vic case has rightfully brought animal abuse out of the shadows,” Malani said.
Apart from her domestic animal rescues, Malani has participated in raising awareness for numerous foreign animal abuse cases, including the slaughtering of baby seals in the Harp Seal Nursery at the annual spring hunt on Canada’s East Coast.
“When seals are first born, they have white fur,” Malani said. “Canada recently passed legislation that prevented hunters from slaughtering seals before they develop gray hair. It typically takes 12 days into the seal’s life for this to happen.”
The Humane Society rents out boats to capture the slaughter of the seals on film to craft public service announcements for their website. This past March at the hunt, Malani and her crew ran into legal troubles when they were accused of breaching rules stipulated in their filming permits.

“The hunters do not like to be filmed on the water whatsoever,” Malani said. “At times, they tried to crash their large boats into ours, so we had to violate our permits for our safety and to navigate around the ice.”
The filming permits were instantly revoked and some crew members were arrested. Malani explained that the Humane Society’s contributions towards raising awareness of the slaughtering have lead to a decline in the number of seals killed. Last year’s hunt, Malani said, left 325,000 seals killed, yet this year, the number dropped to 275,000.
“Canada will never make the hunt illegal. There is a huge fishing community up there. They have been doing it for decades and it is their right.”

Instead, Malani states, the Humane Society is not focusing on ending the hunt, but rather urging consumers to boycott goods containing seal skin.
“We are not telling people to stop doing anything,” Malani said. “We are just suggesting that there are alternatives.”
The Humane Society’s short films chronicling the brutal nature of seal slaughtering in Canada speak enough for themselves, Malani suggested. The videos have had widespread impact in spreading awareness of the cruel slaughtering tactics Canadian sealers, including in Greenland, where the government banned imports of Canadian seal skins, citing fears of inhumane slaughtering, Malani said.
Apart from her work with seals in Canada, Malani has documented the cruel tactics of horse slaughter houses in Mexico as well as the brutality of factory farming. When asked how she copes with witnessing animal cruelty first hand on a regular basis, Malani explained that despite how disturbing it is, she knows that what she is doing with the Humane Society is essential to preserving animal rights.
“It’s difficult,” Malani said. “I am there to get the images and bring about change. It’s really tough at times, but knowing that these images can have an impact on the future and initiate change provides me with solace.”
I was glad I attended the lecture because it was, not only deeply engaging, but also refreshing to feel passionate for a cause that hasn’t been relentlessly rehashed during political debates lately.

Being Emo about Dissident Media

2007-11-02T01:15:00.000-04:00

After taking a substantial amount of this class already, I feel inspired. So many people have done so much for the nation, and it was done all through the power of word. I’ve never seen dissident media as anything powerful before… I almost felt bad for dissident publications because of the fact that hardly anyone reads them. Now, I know they make a difference.

I wish I had taken this class during my internship last fall semester. I worked at a dissident publication called Hispanic Link News Service right here in D.C. The publication wrote news and opinion stories on politics involving the Hispanic community.

I always saw it as work. Hardly ever was I happy or proud to be a part of the dissident media force. I never thought it was fun, mainly because I was apathetic towards politics. Also, I never thought anyone would read what I had to write… who actually follows a small newspaper whose headquarters was in a crowded apartment room off of Logan Circle? I knew of no one.

I felt like I was going against my people for a while. Being a Hispanic myself, I felt like a traitor; I never did any of my work with any gusto for the Latino people, and I don’t know how much damage I did by not feeling anything meaningful and being an activist.

Looking back on the internship, I did some amazing things. Within the first week, I had already gone to an immigration rally. So many people with so much passion for what they want in the world… and I failed miserably in that department. There was so much activism in the air, so much excitement, and I feel like my apathy towards the entire internship brought the whole cause down, even if it was just a little bit.

People fight for things, and people die fighting for things. And I was the loser that didn’t care.

But now, I do. I realize the struggle that. minority groups have to go through to get what they want done. Their voice is through word, and the Hispanic voice was through me last year.

It’s so depressing thinking about how small the newspaper was, but they had such big hearts and such deep hope, that they’re probably better than most mainstream publications. What they speak has volumes, and that volume will hopefully be turned up louder very soon.

The Language Debate

2007-11-01T14:43:00.000-04:00

Tuesday, I attended a book release for "How I learned to Speak English" By Tom Miller. Miller rounded up 55 hispanic authors from all around the United States and told their stories through this novel. In the book release, Miller spoke mainly on how congress continues to ignore spanish speakers and continue to refuse to put both English and Spanish signs up, offer texts in both languages and things of that sort.

The stories the 55 authors told really showed how hard it is to learn English. This makes me wonder why it would be so hard to make the United States bilingual.

The cost of completely bilingual-izing America would be huge as everything would have to change, but this would certainly end the stigma that America only knows English. If America was bilingual it would certainly improve international relations, as foreignors could no longer accuse America of caring only about itself.

Specifically, this would create better relations with Mexico and South America, relations who as of recently have been quite strained. It is vital to have good relations with neighboring countries, and a bilingual America would certain show our spanish speaking southern neighbors a lot more respect that we currently show.

Personally, I feel the reason why America has refused to convert to bilingual system is because over the last decade the government has been mainly conservative. I feel with the growing rate of spanish-speaking immigrants, this law will be changed.

Georgetown Protest Gets a Wide Variety of Coverage

2007-10-30T09:42:00.001-04:00

Two weekends ago the city was marked with several protests, some that erupted into violent actions. My parents were in town visiting and we were up for some DC shopping and dining in Georgetown. Forgetting that a friend of mine had told me about the protest a month before, we headed down to Georgetown for dinner and were surprised to find most of the shops boarded up, cops all over the place, and soon after we arrived the street blocked off to traffic, all because of a protest against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. After walking a little ways down M Street and finding most of the stores boarded up, we decided to find somewhere else for dinner. We missed most of the action, but I heard later that it erupted into a somewhat violent protest, a few storefront windows vandalized and a woman injured by a brick. I later learned that the protest was staged in Georgetown not only because of its vicinity to the IMF and World Bank, but because of the wealth concentrated there. It was an anti-capitalist protest as well as a protest against the World Bank and the IMF. I was interested to see what kind of coverage the event would have and was surprised to find not only the normal mainstream coverage, but also a large amount of alternative media coverage. The blogosphere was filled with response to the event. Many of the posts were however strongly opinionated with phrases such as " LEFTY PROTESTERS IN GEORGETOWN STICK IT TO THE MAN by hitting a woman with a brick: and "Leftwingnuts Make Voices Heard By Hitting Lady With a Brick".
I checked out http://tailrank.com/3402876/Woman-Hit-With-Brick-in-Bloody-DC-IMF-Protest and found a whole website dedicated to tracking the "hottest news in the blogosphere" and filled with a sampling of blogs dedicated to the Georgetown protest.

Radical Cheerleading: A New Means of Activist Expression

2007-10-30T05:04:00.000-04:00

“Squad set?” yells Emily.
“YOU BET!” we respond.

She calls out the cheer and we begin. But this isn’t just any cheerleading squad yelling for their football team. We’re the DC Radical Cheerleaders and our chants have nothing to do with team spirit. We scream for stopping climate change, resisting capitalism’s domination, smashing the state, and liberating ourselves from patriarchy.

We don’t look like your typical cheerleaders either. We dress in full red and black. Instead of skirts and vests we wear leggings, t-shirts, dresses, and safety-pinned patches. We wear bandanas around our necks and write RC/DC proudly across our faces. And most of all, we are excited to cheer.

We assemble downtown on Saturday, September 15 to participate in A.N.S.W.E.R.’s March on Washington to end the war in Iraq. In solidarity with the many demonstrators, we circle up and begin to cheer. We begin with “George,” a crowd favorite that ridicules President Bush and the actions he carries out in the name of the “war on terror.”

GEORGE
Dub dub dub dub dubdubdubdubdubdub dubya bush
The shrub!

He says the war on terror
Will make the world fairer
But we know that he’s lying
‘Cuz we see innocents dying

Your civil liberties
He’ll take away
He’ll spy on you all night and day!

‘Cuz I’m a terrorist and you’re a terrorist
And she’s a terrorist and he’s a terrorist!
Its terror! AH! Its terror! AH!
But what is terror anyway?

Nuclear destruction
Genetically modified food
The IMF, the World Bank
It’s all bad news!
Damn, them fascists are some heavy, heavy dudes.

Resist, Resist
Raise up your fist!
Resist, resist
We know you are pissed
Resist, resist
Fight the capitalists
Resist, resist
Show ‘em what they can kiss! Uh!

Of course, no simple listing of these lines can do the cheer justice. Just imagine twenty women yelling, clapping, kicking, and moving. The energy, even on this hot afternoon, is contagious. Crowds gather around us as we cheer. They ask us who we are, because many of them have never seen a radical cheerleading squad perform before.

Conceived by three Florida sisters in 1996, the radical cheerleading movement has spread across the country and across the world. The first radical cheerbook, published as a zine in 1997, describes it as "activism with pom-poms and middle fingers extended. It's screaming 'fuck capitalism' while doing a split." It is a type of Guerilla Theater—attention grabbing and exciting. In the midst of a serious political demonstration, we energize people and provide entertainment. It’s a unique form of activism that’s empowering and fun.

Throughout the day we move through the crowd, performing many other cheers for our fellow protesters, including “Ugly” (about corporate greed), “Hot In Here” (against global warming, set to the tune of Nelly’s song Hot In Herre), and “369” (against the World Bank / IMF). Two other cheers, “Supersonic” and “Fraggle Rock,” are below. One of the highlights of the day was confronting the counter-protesters, the Gathering of Eagles. We were able do drown out their conservative chants with our radical cheers. We also took a break from cheering to dance along with the drum circle. Dancing is great for morale!

After a few hours of cheering and marching, the protest is over. We return to AU, tired but satisfied, and ready for the next action, rally, or demonstration where we can showcase our cheers.

SUPERSONIC
The D is for Deception
The U is for Untrue
The B is for BS, girl you know he lied to you
The Y is for Your war
A we Asked you to stop
The B is for the Bombs nobody asked you to drop

George Bush
Su-see ya later

The B is for our Bodies
The U is for Unique
The S is for Safe sex,
George you know the kids all freak!
The H for Human rights
And the M for My
The F for Feminism waving you buh-bye

George Bush
You motherfucker

Well…
Hey George Bush,
Can’t you see
That my body belongs to me!

FRAGGLE ROCK
(Set to the tune of the TV show's opening song)
Take it to the streets
Revolution is so sweet
Something we expect
Is freedom and respect

So radicals of today
We need to find a better way
We need to have a say
Equality’s the way

So stomp and smash the state
It’s time for us to liberate
And Bush can go to hell
Rise up, resist, rebel

For more information on radical cheerleading, click these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_cheerleading
http://radcheers.tripod.com/
http://american.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228634443

Jimmy Carter on Darfur

2007-10-30T03:43:00.000-04:00

[this post was originally written on October 25th]

I managed to get my hands on one of the elusive Jimmy Carter Engagement tickets and at 1:13 yesterday I saw the former president in person for the first time.
As he walks out on stage, I realize just how courteous, lithe and inspirational the man really is. He waves at us all, accepts the uproarious applause with grace, and of course starts with a joke –he’s already three times better than our current president. As he begins to dive into his speech, the recital hall falls wonderfully silent, save the sounds of camera flashes and shutters. Secret Service, Metro Police and Campus Security stand with their backs to the stage, watching the audience for potential security threats. Their presence isn’t enough to overwhelm the optimism of Carter’s speech, however.
He finishes his story about a New Yorker cartoon and the importance of being an activist ex-president and launches into a discussion on the involvement of the Carter Center in elections, leaders, food and mental health concerns in developing nations around the world. From there Carter speaks about The Elders: Kofi Anon, Nelson Mandella, Desmond Tutu and himself, among others –“political has-beens” he jokingly says. Burma, Zimbabwe and Darfur are the focal points of activism among The Elders. Carter then begins to speak exclusively on the topic of Darfur and the efforts he’s led through both the Carter Center and The Elders to raise awareness of the “crimes against humanity” occurring in Darfur and to “find permanent peace” between northern and southern Sudan. He rejects the term “genocide” in discussing the Darfur question because –he argues- “while the government is culpable” for the atrocities committed upon hundreds of thousands of Darfuris, “the government has not orchestrated [those attacks]”.
Within this very serious discussion, however, the climax of Carter’s speech comes when he says that the momentum of American foreign policy and international opinion of the United States can –and should- change within the half hour needed for a new Democratic president to deliver his or her inaugural address. Carter suggests that five things must be said. First, the new president must declare that the United States will no longer go to war unless there is a direct threat to our national security. Second: that we will no longer torture potentially innocent suspects and hold them accountable to American law without providing them with American rights – full, boisterous applause follows this pronouncement. Next, Carter calls for peace in the Middle East and an increased concern for the environment in “combating global warming”. Carter’s fifth and most important suggestion for the new president’s inaugural speech is a promise to “raise high the banner of human rights” –more applause follows.
On the whole, Carter’s speech reminds me of the importance of idealism in foreign policy: without hope for a better method of dealing with terrorists, ignorance, struggling economies and decreasing resources, what improvements in international relations do we have to look forward to in the future? What we need now is a president who can break us out of this self-destructive approach to foreign policy –power relations are immutable- and show us that there’s a better way to do business. We need a president who can unite our country socially (s/he must defend the humanity and equality between men and women of all sexual orientations) economically (s/he must refuse to sign resolution after resolution to send more and more U.S. money into the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan and instead funnel those dollars back into domestic programs) and politically (s/he must engender bi-partisan support for furthering social and economic equality at home and abroad). Perhaps with a president like that we may begin to solve some of the issues to which President Carter has devoted so much of his life.

Progress in Politics Forum

2007-10-30T01:58:00.000-04:00

I'm sitting in the Butler Board Room at AU waiting for the "Progress in Politics Forum" to begin. The forum is sponsored by Women's Initiative and Students for Hillary and will feature 3 AU professor panelists: Sarah Brewer, Allan Lichtman, and Barbara Palmer. According to the AU Student Government Web site, the forum "will examine and discuss the past, present and future of women in American politics from a historical, political and feminist perspective."
These issues are important to expanding the diversity of political debate in America today. The increasing influence of women on the political process has the opportunity to transform political dialogue. This is especially relevant in light of Nancy Pelosi's recent election to Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton's bid for the oval office in 2008.

The panel is beginning without Allen Lichtman, who failed to show up.
Director of Women & Politics Institute Karen O'Connor is moderating the discussion.

While the panel covered a broad range of topics from the first congresswoman (Jeanette Rankin, first elected in 1916) to the term of former supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I'd like to focus mainly on the panel's discussion of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and the challenges facing women running for national office today.

Palmer discussed whether we, as a country, have gotten past referring to Pelosi as "Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house," and now think of her only as "Speaker Pelosi." Palmer said when a journalist recently asked her this question, she was inclined to say yes, we have gotten past it, but then she recalled an instance this past summer when the media had a ball covering Clinton's cleavage. Often, the media will cover female politicians' clothes and families far more than they will for male politicians.

I find this appalling, and really, really annoying. Focusing on personal matters and fashion choices obscures the real issues at hand. Though Brewer said in the panel that Clinton does not get as much of this because she has been on the national political stage for so long. However, women's professional dress is a lot less standard than men's (I guess a blue suit and red tie wouldn't fly with Hillary. I know it wouldn't with me!), so we have a lot more room to be creative. Of course, this can create a distinctive look that some wayward journalist might actually think is newsworthy

Back on Pelosi, Brewer said that it is her duality of female stereotypes that contributed to her success.
"She's not the iron lady, but she's not just the grandma that everybody likes," Brewer said, citing Pelosi's traditionally masculine approach to leadership.
"Don't get me wrong, the fact that she's a grandmother of five is the reason she can get away with this.... shes a great transitional person in my mind," Brewer added.

After the panel, I asked Brewer and Palmer whether they thought a single, childless woman could succeed in politics without appearing too masculine. To me, it seems to be a lose-lose situation set up by gender scripts. Either you are weak and nurturing, unable to stand up in a political battle, or too hard and career driven, with no family values. In that case, you probably must be a lesbian too.
Brewer and Palmer cited two examples of young, childless women who have put their political careers first and are meeting with early success: Congresswoman Hilda Soliz of California, and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota.
However, whether these women or others like them will be able to overcome these hurdles in campaigning for higher offices remains to be seen.

Finally, one interesting point the specifically applies to the topic of presidential debate is how a female candidate can appear strong and tell the American people what they want to hear. Many people seem to have doubts about how a woman would behave in the role of commander in chief. Palmer discussed a question asked at one of the earlier democratic primary debates. The moderator asked what each candidate would do if terrorists carried out 9/11 style attacks on major U.S. cities during their term. Obama and Edwards both said they would investigate who really committed the attacks before responding and would discuss options with foreign allies. Bush, Palmer added, would probably have said the same thing if he had been asked. However, Palmer said Hillary responded that she would bomb them off the face of the planet.
"I don't know if thats what she'd really do, but that was the answer that people wanted, and she got it right," Palmer said.

Does being a woman mean you have to give up what you may really believe in order to appear stronger, less "womanly?" Do women have to give up more to run a successful campaign than men?

Giuliani is most electable?

2007-10-30T00:43:00.000-04:00

I've never been good about following politics, and to be honest, I never really cared that much. However, now that I'm eligible to vote in the next election, and because I live in the political capitol of the world, I deem it necessary to get involved and become politically aware. So last week I decided to thoroughly read about all the candidates running in the 2008 election, since I really only knew about them from headlines in the news (embarrassing, I know).

I am a registered independent, and my views do swing both ways, so I thought that I would be most impressed by Giuliani since he seems like the most moderate candidate of them all. However, I was shocked when I was reading about his policy views and how he feels about certain issues that are critical for the next election.

When I was reading about his views on "War and Peace" I felt as if he is a prime example of why foreign countries hate us and the epitome of the superiority complex that Americans have. In one example, he states: "Liberating the Iraqis is something we should be proud of" (http://ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm). As well (from the same site), "Negotiate with Iran, but fully prepared for force". and "We've never won a war while discussing how to retreat". I'm not intentionally trying to pick sides or say that Giuliani is ultimately wrong; however, I was shocked to hear how arrogant he seems to come off, when the whole time I thought he would be a little more liberal in his mindset when it came to the War in Iraq. I live right outside New York City, and I witnesses firsthand how he restored the city and what a people person he is, but this I was not expecting. I'm sorry but backing up your words in Iran with force just does not seem like a peaceful idea to me... I also can see why some Iraqis hate us so much.. because we did barge into their country and liberate them, and no one asked us to. I think that we definitely helped the country to take a step in the right direction, and their country did need to be reformed from its devastated state, but how would America feel if take France for example, barged onto our territory and dictated how the country should be established and ran politically.. Americans would be in an uproar as well. I felt as if Giuliani was very blunt and on a one track mind, when I felt as if he gave off different vibes in the past.

There is a new article out though stating the Giuliani is seen as the "Most Electable Candidate" and it could be very beneficial for the Republican party if he is the front running candidate, especially against Clinton, because a lot of Democrats/Independents who aren't ready for a female voter will vote for Giuliani since he is the most moderate. My question is though, if a major issue of the next election is the War in Iraq, will this be detrimental to Giuliani for those swing voters who don't necessarily want a female President, but are very anti-war as well, given Giuliani's views?

Gingrich Speech

2007-10-29T22:44:00.000-04:00

I sat on the floor near the exit, off to the side near where the press sat at the FRC Action Values Voter Summit: The Washington Briefing. It was in a huge ballroom in the Washington Hilton in DuPont, which I found highly ironic. I had raced there, trying to make it in time to hear Newt’s speech. While getting set up to take notes, I was trying to change into red heels—appropriate, I figured, for one of the biggest conservative conventions of the year. Newt was the last speaker of the daytime session.
Enthusiasm rose as Newt was introduced as the former Speaker of the House, author of Rediscovering God in America, the Chairman of the Gingrich Group The Gingrich Group, and “a drum major in our march for a better future,” among his other accomplishments. Rock music played as he walked on stage and he was met with a standing ovation and thunderous applause. Ladies and Gentlemen, Newt Gingrich.
You know how in the press club speech we watched, Newt was very good at appealing to both sides, while still maintaining his conservative viewpoints? That was perfect for the National Press club. This speech was also very much tailored to the audience. He showed a lot statistics, most of which are available here. According to his statistics, 86% of all Americans believe there are certain values that unite us all. The statistics he cited mostly involved national defense, taxes, religion, and morality. For example, 85% of Americans believe it is very important to defend American allies. 89% believe religion and morality are important to their family. 64% believe that there is not enough religion taught in school. Only 8% believe that there is too much religion in school, “which” he said, “must be the size of the ACLU.”
Gingrich said that the “elite critics” misunderstand what the argument regarding religion in schools and in the nation is really about. He said he is not advocating theology to be taught in school, just political history. When Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence he did say that we are “endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights,” even if he was a deist. Newt also looked at Washington, who was a Christian and Benjamin Franklin, another deist, who called for a day of prayer during the Constitution Convention. Gingrich notes that Lincoln spoke of God fourteen times in the 2nd Inaugural Address, as is written in the Lincoln Memorial. FDR, during his radio talks to the nation asked his listeners to join him in prayer for D-Day.
He did not deny the need for separation of church and state. However, he clarified what he meant by that separation. He said that when Jefferson used the term, he was writing a letter to reassure someone that there would be no compulsory, state-funded religion above the other religions. “Good,” was Newt’s description of the separation of church and state. He doesn’t want the Government funding religion when it, “can’t even fund the Federal Government.”
Newt emphasized that The Constitution says “We the People,” not “We the Lawyers,” and not “We the Politicians.” He said that we lend the politicians our power, it is not theirs to legislate without control. We have the right to fire the politicians that are mishandling power every election.
From a purely political standpoint, Gingrich said very little. Other than mentioning that Immigration should be encouraged (but that the Immigrants need to become Americans and learn English), Newt mostly discussed American history from a Christian perspective.
On the way out of the conference, Newt had people handing out handouts to read the way a teacher does in a class.
To show how well his speech went over at the conference, after his speech—when Newt was signing autographs in his books and taking pictures with his fans, his book sold out completely.

Have We Lost the Edge? long blog post

2007-10-29T20:33:00.000-04:00

I suppose it was coincidence or maybe fate, but the topics in the Streitmatter chapter presentations over the past week have coincided with a concert that I attended that got me thinking about political action and debate. The concert was of a band called Umphrey's McGee (which I had never heard before the concert but decided to go anyways because lets be serious, concerts rock) who played mostly upbeat, jam-band, Phish-style, music and I must say I had a good time. What got me thinking about politics however was a comment that one of the singers made about the lack of political action in DC. It was an innocent comment which was basically a liberal-drenched cliche about Bush being a moron and that we should "Get out of Iraq" and that it was our responsibility based on our geographical position at the time. The comment would have typically rolled right off me, but our classes' recent discussion of musicians as agents of political change got me thinking.

What Happened?

Where's our generations Dylan?

Where's our generations Hendrix?

What are our musicians singing about?

I must admit that I do not listen to much popular-mainstream music anymore (but honestly, does anybody else our age), but I can't help hearing it in passing every once in a while. What I have heard lately doesn't even compare to soulful and emotional rendition of "The Star-spangled Banner", instead it sounds something like a broken synthesizer regurgitating 1980's top forty hits. It is bothersome that our music has become commodified to the point that there is no longer room for politics or meaningful social issues.
Don't get me wrong however, I might be blind to a sweeping political music scene that is prominent to everyone but me, but I simply just don't see it. Sorry. Hear it. Maybe I'm tuning in to tune out, but I can't see our musicians now-a-days taking a strong political stance on something (sans the Dixie Chicks). Maybe I'm just jaded because I happen to be a fan of classic rock, but I'd like to see our musicians shed their politically apathetic images and start talking to the youth like the musicians of the counterculture revolution on the 60's.

Long Blog Post-White House Correspondents Event

2007-10-28T13:25:00.000-04:00

For my long blog post, I decided to go to the event in Bender Arena that featured a moderated discussion between White House Correspondent David Gregory and Hearst columnist and former White House Correspondent Helen Thomas. The discussion revolved around a debate between the two on whether or not the White House Press Corps had failed the American public in its coverage of the Iraq war, specifically whether or not the hard questions were asked in the reasoning behind the war and if the press had given President Bush a free ride rather than seem anti-American or pro-terrorist.

Helen Thomas took the position that the press corps failed miserably, giving the president carte blanche approval to wage the war in Iraq under false pretenses without the slightest amount of journalistic inquiry or opposition but instead allowing Bush to use the press as an instrument by which to carry his message to the American people unabated and un-scrutinized. Thomas's stance was one of a virulent and unapologetic ultra-left wing Bush hater. For a good example of her political stance, take a look at one of the columns she has written at http://www.koat.com/helenthomas/8192106/detail.html.

David Gregory, as a current White House Correspondent, tried to remain politically neutral while maintaining that "the hard questions were asked." For information on Gregory, go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3688588/.

The debate was a very interesting one, albeit very polarized. In the blue corner we had the unapologetically Bush bashing Thomas and in the red corner we had the neutral and defensive Gregory.

To Gregory's credit, he made the excellent point of saying that the American people in general and Congress in particular were the ones who truly allowed Bush to invade Iraq. But beyond that, the only point he really seemed capable of making was that "the hard questions were asked." He also pointed out the niche culture mass media and particularly the internet have created that allows people to hear only the news they want to hear and only from the sources who present in a way they agree with.

Beyond those points however, Gregory said little that was truly substantive and not once did he ever say what questions were asked, only that they were. Truthfully, Gregory's defense of himself and the journalistic community came across as a very hollow one. His justification of how everyone let Bush get away with Iraq? "The country was in a different place after 9/11." To add insult to injury, when describing how news gets out, of all the possible sources and stations, newspapers and sites for information, one of the few examples he used for that venue was Fox News.

Thomas was not exactly perfect herself. While I completely agree with her anti-war statements, they came across as so strong that one might wonder if she's allowed herself to be blinded by her hatred of Bush. And then there was the point she made that while they were not in recent times, the hard questions were asked in Vietnam. Alas, they cut questions short before I could ask how she justified that statement even though the dissident press was decrying the war as early as 1954 while the mainstream didn't begin anti-war coverage until January and February of 1968 and that coverage was a virtual clone of the arguments the dissident press had been making for a decade or more.

Curious how historical retrospect can change present opinions. Scary as it may seem, press coverage seems to have actually improved since Vietnam. If you take Thomas's advice and absorb what she says with a grain of salt, the hard questions of Vietnam were asked , but not until 1968. It took 14 years for the mainstream to start against the war back then, it took much less for the modern press to pick up with anti-war coverage. Maybe progress has to come in very small increments over very long periods of time.

I feel obligated to try and tie this whole think back to my group's particular subject, being candidates positions. As far as that goes, you have to wonder what exactly a candidate or actual elected officials position is on the press. The press can and has been manipulated both here and abroad as both an instrument of support and opposition to those in power. All those running for office want the press to cover them more, and to do so in a positive light. The mark of a good journalist, I think, is how much said journalist allows those men and women to get away with it.
That is not to say journalists should automatically oppose those running for and holding office, only that they should be weary of being anyone's instrument save for the truth.

Newt Gingrich and subsequently Rick Tyler are of the position that the press should at most serve as time keeper in political debates, that the press coverage should only report, never introduce the topic of discussion. And whether or not the press highlights the topics that aren't as important as what the candidates want to discuss is a valid question. Other candidates treat the press with a similar attitude, and still others just want them to be carry their message to the masses for assimilation and subsequent support.

Humor Group -- Long Blog

2007-10-26T18:52:00.001-04:00

I’m really not interested in politics. At all. When I graduate, I plan on moving to New York City and working at a fashion magazine or maybe a travel publication. It’s sad to say, but I pretty much get my news from The Daily Show or the Colbert Report. The humor aspect definitely appeals to me because if these shows weren’t so funny, I probably wouldn’t watch them.

I decided, after talking to Professor Walker, to ask a few friends some questions about what they think about political humor and whether or not it’s important to them. After talking to about fifteen people, I decided that everyone pretty much feels the same: humor is important because it’s what makes politics less about “those guys in Washington” and more real and appealing (quote from one of my roommates).

Most people said that it’s important to understand that these shows are biased. I think that unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past five or so years, you know that The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, South Park, and every other show that involves political humor is slanted toward the left. But yes, after realizing that these shows obviously have a liberal bias, the humor can be appreciated.

One of my other roommates said that humor is important because politicians need to be able to laugh at themselves and take all “the heavy stuff” that’s happening in the world and see the lighter side. I think that shows like The Daily Show certainly do this, but politicians themselves have not really shown their comedic side.

Anyway, I think that shows like the ones on Comedy Central are helping people like me by engaging us in what’s going on in the political world and making an otherwise boring topic much more interesting.

Last Week's Speaker

2007-10-26T11:01:00.000-04:00

Live Blogging of Rick Tyler

Friday, I had an opportunity to be part of a presentation/discussion from Newt Gingrich’s press secretary Rick Tyler. So to fully understand the complexity, I attempted to use a diary type chronically of his time, kind of like what ESPN writer Bill Simmons does for sports games. So without further ado, here is a live diary with some interpretation of the speech:

11:21- introduction of speaker by Professor Dana Walker of American University. Rick Tyler has had success in getting people elected into political positions and host a radio show.

11:24- commences his speech by stating his shock that a press secretary for Newt Gingrich to come onto a college campus.

11:24- posed a question about how we, as college students, obtained their information concerning political information. Tyler stated that in his time he had few sources of news.

11:25-press secretary draws two circles comparing his live and a typical voter’s life. He shaded in most of his circle with the idea that politics takes up most of his life. He then made a tick like dot in the voter’s circle to make the point that they don’t pay much attention to politics.

11:28- Tyler stated that people are weird for watching shows like meet the press and listening to talk radio. Normal people do many other things before watching/listening these things.

11:29-Tyler starts a discussion about the first political debate between Kennedy and Nixon. People thought Kennedy won the debate on television and those who listen to the debate thought Nixon won.

11:31-Tyler posses the question of what is wrong with political debate. One person brought up the idea that candidates are too rigid and lifeless. Another point is that the candidates sound too rehearsed in a debate.

11:32-bring the mood down by talking about how we have many enemies who want to kill us and disrupt our lives. Tyler randomly brings up controlling our borders as a threat to our nation security. Tyler also discusses how we will have to come into struggle with China and India because they have 2 billion more people to work with. Tyler believes that if the US fixes a lot the “-tions”.

11:37- Tyler then asked the audience if they knew anything about social security and how we won’t get any.

11:38-Tyler brings up the point that baby boomers are the most spoiled generation in the history of the United States. He brings up the point that everything eventually goes down in price, except education and health care.

11:40-Tyler discusses the debate system as 9 people from each party lined up like seals waiting for fish from the moderator. He brought up the point that with primary debates, each party looks absolutely crazy from each perspective. Tyler feels a possible solution for this is the Cooper-Union Debate which is to get 2-4 representatives have a 90 min discussion and just talk and have a discussion.

11:44- Tyler brings up the point that the media gets the most talk time and they set the agenda. He implies that media chooses things that sell, but are not what people really wanted to hear about.

11:46-Tyler brings up Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to describe how certain people will vote a certain part no matter what the situation.

11:48- Tyler brings up the person of the Bundler who can get lots of campaign money to run the campaign which basically wins elections.

11:49- Tyler brings up a point that the most valuable thing people have are thinking and planning time skills. He believes that people are lost and useless without these.

11:51- Tyler brings up the point that the media covers what they want to cover. Tyler also brings up that on 9/11, the media was covering Chandra Levy before 9/11 and how today, the media covered Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears ad nauseam rather then covering stories that are important.

11:55- A question was raised concerning campaign financing and how to fix it and really criticized a potential idea of giving free airtime. He brings up the point that candidates have the least say in their ability to finance campaigns.

11:59- Tyler proposed the idea that we should be more honest in where they get their money from. If a union or a company raises millions of dollars, then that information should be available on the internet for everyone to see it.

12:01- Tyler stated that two people responded to their invitation, Huckabee and Gravelli.

12:02- Tyler states that consultants do not know much about technology and history. How do you explain to people technology that will be outdated and how times will change.

12:05- Tyler brought up how an actual credit/debit transaction works. He uses this point to explain why we are frustrated with the response to Katrina and the length it takes to cash a Medicare check.

12:10- Tyler brings up the point that the private sector is so far ahead of the government sector, it is ridiculous. He brought up the point that voters do not care about the process, just the results. We recently have gotten to the point where we are fed-up with the dissidence between the government and people.

12:13- Tyler brought up the point that if people can communicate well, they will listen for 90 minutes but it will have to be interesting and captivating.

12:14- Tyler brings up the point that there are 39 or 32 pages of debate rules and some of the rules are ridiculous.

12:15- 9 90’s and 9- the idea of having 9 substantive 90 minute debates in the 9 weeks before the election.

12:18- Tyler would never want to see the censoring of speech and when people can campaign. He also liked the idea of using YouTube for debates, but not trivializing it.

12:20- Tyler was asked the question about if opening campaign contributions up the media would not be over played the way it is by having transparency.

12:22- Tyler feels that the media and campaign money determined the downfall of debates i.e. Clinton’s health care proposal. The media covered how it affects Obama rather then what is in the proposal.

12:24- Tyler believes that the candidates actually needs to state what they really are about by using their websites as a main hub for people to discuss. He would then want a compilation and have a blind issue poll and then candidates can then be affected for having a lack of substance on the websites. He believes that it is an idealistic concept, but he is

12:27- Tyler had to defend Newt in not running into the race. Ted Kennedy was asked why he wanted to be president and Kennedy had not real reason to be president. He also brought up how Giuliani talked about money raising when the host said hello and welcome and how were things going.

12:31- Tyler brings up to the point that people customizing how and where they are consuming their news. So two people in the same house can consume two completely different styles of news

12:33- “Slogans are fine if they have substance in them.”

Who's watching?

2007-10-23T10:29:00.000-04:00

For my first long blog post I’ve decided to crunch some numbers. Yeah I know, it doesn’t sound so exciting at first. But I was curious to see how good (turns out I should say “how bad”) viewership among the American people is today, and also the trends that presidential debate viewership have been taking since the 60’s when the televised debate was first introduced. The Commission On Presidential Debates has records on viewership numbers going all the way back to Kennedy and Nixon.
Things started out OK. The four televised debated in the 1960 general election drew an average viewership 63.1 million people per debate. At the time, this averaged out to be nearly 35 percent of the population watching each debate. Viewership percentages fell slowly, and not too alarmingly through the 70’s and 80’s. In 1988 an average of 27.5 percent of the population tuned in each night.
The year America changed the channel appears to be 1996. An average of 41.2 million people watched the debates, that's a population average of only 15.5 percent at the time. Numbers from 2000 show that viewership was continuing to slow.
One thing I noticed in looking at all this was that Americans tuned in their greatest numbers for the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon, and 1960 was the only election year to feature 60 minute debates. Every year after that the debate time was increased to 90 minutes. Is it possible that working Americans just don’t have those 90 minutes in their day to spare?
Early projections of viewership in 2008 don’t look too promising. The highest rated debate thus far has been Fox News Channel’s Republican debate in New Hampshire, which was seen in 2.47 million households. Debates held on CNN and MSNBC have fared worse.

New York Times takes a tip from YouTube

2007-10-23T01:40:00.000-04:00

I was just scanning the New York Times website, looking for something of interest to post about, when I stumbled across an embedded video in the margin of the U.S. Politics page. The video is called "Republican Debate: Analyzing the Details". Not only is there a video transcript and an accompanying text transcript, but the debate has been conveniently divided up into clickable sections, such as: "Republicans vs. Hillary Clinton," "Health Care," and "Who's More Conservative?" Also, the good people at the New York Times have included a transcript analyzer, which lists the exact number of words spoken by each participant (excluding the moderator, Rudy Guiliani tops the list with 2158, while Jim Greer and Charlie Crist each have a measly 60), and which visually breaks up the debate into a weird, bar code-esque format. Talk about user-friendly.

When YouTube first exploded into the internet scene, being able to watch a news clip or political debate through a website at one's leisure was an exciting novelty. Later, as we learned from guest speaker James Kotecki, YouTube began to transform from a sort of political vessel into a political instigator. Now it appears as though the trend is catching on. I have no idea whether or not New York Times Online has been posting videos for a while now, but regardless--it's fascinating to see to what extent news sources are now attempting to cater to their readers. Now, not only are you not obligated to plan your evening around a scheduled debate, but you don't even have to watch all of it to find out what candidates said about issues that concern you.

The only negative aspect of this sort of convenience that I can see is that it could perpetuate--and probably even intensify--the closed-mindedness present in many debate watchers. When these people watch entire debates, they may choose to ignore opposing viewpoints regarding topics about which they've already made up their minds, but at least they're exposed to these opposing viewpoints. If more and more people are electing to pick and choose what pieces of the debates they'd like to see, then it will become less and less likely for watchers on each side of the political spectrum to challenge what they already believe.

WANTED (Dead or Alive): Modern Political Debate

2007-10-23T01:16:00.000-04:00

While I can’t say that I was overly thrilled with or impressed by Rick Tyler’s discussion, I was intrigued by what he had to say about political debate reform. But before I delve into his propositions, let me begin by affirming my overwhelming dislike for the modern concept of a political debate. Every time I sit down to watch a debate (which is rare, sporadic, and generally only within a month of an election), I find that by the end of the night I’m just as disappointed as I’d expected. Rarely, if ever, do I gain insight into a candidate’s character, or learn something about them that I couldn’t have read, verbatim, from their campaign website. Usually each candidate is allowed so many seconds to respond to a carefully crafted and premeditated question that doesn’t come from their opponent, but rather, from an unaffiliated third party. Is this crazy, or am I?? I want to see the candidates and the candidates alone conversing with each other, asking the tough questions, and being capable of coming up with the clever answers on the spot. Leave the mediator at home, please. Cut the strict time limits and the tedious rules. I want to see a raw presentation of the person who could potentially be the next “leader of the free world,” (as Tyler referred to it through thinly veiled conservativism).

This brings me to Tyler’s theory of debate reform. Though he devoted a shockingly small portion of his speech to this topic (the drawings on the blackboard didn’t suffice for me), I thought he made some valid points. First of all, I agree, to an extent, that political debate between members of the same party can seem redundant and overtly liberal or conservative. I do not, however, think that this type of debate should be eliminated from the campaign process altogether. I think that this type of debate is fundamental and crucial for each party in determining who is best suited for the race, but I think there is definitely room for reform. Tyler went on to suggest that political debate should consist of one candidate from each party, on a stage, partaking in a healthy, unscripted, unsupervised debate. I definitely agree with this theory, and I look forward to the day that this debate takes place. However, I want to add to this dream and suggest that every candidate, and yes that includes candidates of the somewhat taboo parties such as the Libertarian or Green Party, be a participant in our nation’s notorious prime time debates. I think that all candidates, regardless of the status of their membership in mainstream parties, are deserving of our country’s attention and time. Needless to say, I hope to see in 2008 a variety of candidates in the debate scene, and with any luck, a lot less of the unnecessary mediator.

Not so revolutionary protest

2007-10-23T00:44:00.000-04:00

A handful of protests were staged over the past few days in D.C. The protests were aimed at a slew of issues, including the war in Iraq and climate change, according to the Washington Post. Of course, dissident voices from the public are an important element of meaningful political debate; but, with so few palpable consequences, you really have to weigh the merits of public demonstration.

This isn't to say public involvement is futile, but frankly, an organized march in downtown D.C. just seems like old hat. Nothing is less revolutionary than a well-planned gathering. According to the Post, Monday's protest at Capitol Hill resulted in 59 arrests -- that's at least 59 people who care enough about the issues to put themselves at the hands of police. But how much news coverage did the protest result in?

The news media is supposed to provide the public with information they need to make decisions in their lives (according to a journalism professor here at AU. Thanks.) So, does the lack of coverage of these protests indicate that the news media doesn't think they're important? Can the public go on with their lives without knowing about them?

Maybe so. When there's seemingly (and sometimes literally) another protest every week, it's not really newsworthy. Maybe it's time for the public to use more creative methods for getting dissident voices heard. It seems to me that the Internet is a much more effective platform for protest. Sure, you can't replicate the visual of thousands of people coming together for a cause, but these days, who even cares to look?

Colbert '08

2007-10-23T00:25:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday, comedian Stephen Colbert announced that he was running for President in South Carolina on his late-night show The Colbert Report. A clip of his appearance with Jon Stewart (in which he spoke of running) can be watched at
http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118625
Colbert will be running under both the Republican and Democratic parties in his home-state and, providing he files the correct paperwork by November 1st, will appear on the ballot.
While his sudden foray into the world of politics isn't necessarily surprising, it's definitely a humorous turn to the 2008 presidential elections. Stephen Colbert is not a serious candidate for the coveted title of Commander-In-Chief. He has said, since announcing his intentions to run, that he doesn't want to be elected President—he simply wants to run for President. When asked who will be his running-mate, he suggested such politicians as Larry Craig, who was recently embroiled in a sex scandal.
The candidacy of Stephen Colbert is, sadly enough, not going to impact the outcome of the actual elections in the slightest. It is his way of poking fun at the absurdity that is the American political machine. Constitutionally, there is nothing about Stephen Colbert that makes him unfit to be President. I personally think he could bring a much-needed sense of humor that is currently lacking from the presidency. A shift of perspective from politician to comedian might help revitalize the political infrastructure in the White House.
Stephen Colbert is truly a candidate without any political bias—the only views he represents are his own. His ultra-conservative caricature serves to both make fun of Democrats and Republicans. His goals are best put in his own words: “If, at the Democratic National Convention, somebody has to stand up and say, ‘the proud state of South Carolina, the palmetto state, the home of the greatest peaches and shrimp in the world, casts one vote for native son, Stephen Colbert,’ I’d say I won.”

Sexism in the Media

2007-10-22T16:24:00.000-04:00

If the above video doesn't work, the link is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU

I am in class right now that is mainly a study of feminism, so my sexism radar is highly tuned. After watching this video, I realized that feminism is still alive and well in the media.

The fact that this video cut out everything that Hilary Clinton had to say at this rally and focused entirely on her "rudeness" shows the lack of support that this particular media group has for a female president.

Also, the video showed the vast female support that Hilary has, and none of the male support. By no means am I a supporter of Hilary Clinton, not because I don't want a female president, but I'm just not interested in politics.

I, however, think its sad that the bias in media is so clear in a report like this. The role of a journalist is to be objective at all times, this report is not objective at all and shows the failure of mainstream media to hold up to its own standards.

I believe it is important that the flaws in candidates should be shown, but it should be fair ground. Hilary Clinton definitely has her flaws, but the reason this rally was staged was to discuss her main issues for her presidential candidacy. That is the news and should definitely be incorporated.

I'm not saying that the fact that Hilary "ignored" questions is not news, because presidential candidates have a duty to the public and should be informing them at all times, however, it is more important that her viewpoints on delivered to the public as well as her mistakes.

Maybe, this feminism class has gone to my head, who knows? But I couldn't help but notice the bias in this particular media publication.

Long Blog -- Humor Group

2007-10-20T00:16:00.000-04:00

I am in the humor group for the blog. I think humor is really important in every day life, but it is especially significant when it comes to politics. Many people (myself included) are really bored by politics and tune it out. By adding a little humor, people become more interested and actually want to read or learn more about it.

The best example of political humor, at least for me, is John Stewart. I watch The Daily Show all the time and it literally makes me laugh out loud. People can feel put off my politics because they don’t understand it – at least that’s my reason – but by making fun of current events, The Daily Show makes me feel like I can understand it because it’s on my level. Politics is no longer some intangible, ambiguous “thing.”

An example of John Stewart’s humor, as if none of you guys have watched The Daily Show, is here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=119424

Stewart’s “R. Kelly Impersonator” makes fun of Larry Craig’s bathroom scandal.

Stephen Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” is also really funny. Here is a clip from Colbert’s show earlier this week, after he announced his goal to run as president of the United States: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118636

There’s another funny Colbert clip, where the host fills out papers that he needs to fill out for the primary: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118638

I think that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s shows are really important because although they seem stupid, they actually spark the interest of people like me…Who otherwise really wouldn’t be interested or care about politics.

Force the Candidates to TALK!

2007-10-19T20:20:00.000-04:00

Today I had the honor of listening to a brilliant and well-informed individual in my Dissident Media class, his name Rick Tyler, the press secretary for Newt Gingrich.

Recently Gingrich has challenged the potential candidates for president to open debates modeling the debates that Lincoln and Douglass had. He is calling for a Cooper Union Debate among the potential candidates for president.

Tyler said, “We need to come up with ways that force candidates to talk about the issues.”

What a brilliant idea!

This evening I am going to embrace that challenge and list some ways we can force our potential candidates for president to talk about the issues.

First I think the open forum, no rules debates are crucial. The two chosen candidates for the presidency need to discuss the issues face-to-face. Give the voters a reason to vote. Let us know what you think and how you are going to better this country. I am sick and tired of hearing about how flawed the competitions campaign is. Stop playing the limelight on the opposition. Shine the light on your views on the issues. That is what America is looking for.

Another way we can get candidates to talk about the issues is to start holding them to what they are publicly displaying, for instance, their websites. Look at them. Search their websites for their views and if they are not there be the watch dog yourself and call it to their attention. If we American’s stand up as united front to these candidates they can only hide behind their thirty second blurbs about the issues so for long.

Finally let’s take it to the Internet. Everyone is on the Internet, so let’s start getting the word out.

This blog was created to raise awareness to the people of this wonderful country that we need to stop settling for lame responses to important questions that effect our every day lives.

Who is voted in as the next president will have the power to change this country forever and I personally want that change to benefit me too.

So people of America let’s take it to the candidates! Let’s force them to have a real voice not the voice of the person putting the dollars in their pockets but a voice on the issues that affect us all.

News Media, Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debate

2007-10-19T19:54:00.000-04:00

Rick Tyler, press secretary for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, spoke today in our Dissident Media class at American University.

Currently Tyler is working as a senior partner at Chesapeake Associates, a professional campaign consulting firm based in Washington D.C. He has experience working with various politicians, and thus plenty of experience working with the media.

Mr. Tyler addressed several issues of importance to modern American society; his main focus was identical to the focus of our blog, how do we renew real, open political debate in today’s society? He described the current political debates as “Nine candidates lining up like seals waiting for the commentator to throw a fish.” Mr. Tyler felt current debating rules need to be changed. He mentioned that currently the rule book contains some 39 pages of regulations, which include rules as to the type of pencil a candidate may use. “These candidates are basically applying to be the leader of the free world,” Mr. Taylor said, adding that 30 seconds for a candidate to discuss his views on the Iraq War is not nearly enough. Mr. Tyler instead recommended having two candidates, preferably from different parties so a sense of bi-partisanship can be achieved, placed on stage together for a ninety minute discussion. The moderator would play a small part, more of a time-keeper than a mediator.

Mr. Tyler also addressed the role the media plays in our current political atmosphere. Clearly, the media plays an important role in our society, and Mr. Taylor suggested using that to our advantage. One specific example he gave of how to use the media to the average voters’ advantage was to institute a weekly blind poll. Candidates’ stances on the important issues would be collected and each week a poll would be published that voters could take to see which candidate’s platform they are most closely aligned with. The media would then announce the results of these blind polls at the end of each week to see who had been the most successful. This would give voters more of a voice within the political sphere, as candidates would have to adjust their platforms to appeal to a wider audience.

To conclude Mr. Tyler discussed the importance of frank debate to America. Mr. Tyler said he feels that without real debate America will eventually fall apart. I would tend to agree our guest speaker’s views, unless some changes are enacted, and some form of real debate is achieved, American society will suffer.

Rick Tyler's ideas

2007-10-19T19:09:00.000-04:00

Rick Tyler, spokesman for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, has some excellent ideas on how to fix America's broken system. His lecture in class today was extremely enlightening and set the ground work for some great ideas that we can implement that could affect the political system.
Mr. Tyler's comments on the media's role in debates are well heeded. Instead of allowing the news outlets to focus on pointless news stories: Britney, Paris, etc, we should instead force them onto coverage of actual issues. There are several ways we, as students an bloggers, can achieve this. The number 1 way is to boycott the news networks and begin a grassroots initiative to keep the boycott strong. If successful, this movement would force change in the way news, and political debates are covered. Without viewers, networks would lack the ability to advertise and therefore make money. Viewers would only come back once coverage was changed. Instead of letting the media control our news, we should begin to take steps to influence the media so they actually cover things of worth.
Mr. Tyler also suggested the use of blind polls in order to actually determine which candidates have a stance on the important issues in society. This is a much better approach to determine candidate positions than our current form of debate. What we are given now are simple sound bites and rehearsed speeches that actually contain nothing of substance. These polls, on the back of one-on-one bipartisan debates, would be a much better value for the American people than our current system. If the media and candidates were able to implement this system, we would be one step closer to fixing our broken political system.
Though he spoke about a great deal about other things, these two topics are of supreme importance. If we change the way in which news is expressed, and the manner in which the candidates debate, we will be that much closer to fixing the broken American political system. Mr. Tyler’s observances as to the problems of modern political society have laid the groundwork for a plethora of ideas that we can implement in order to affect change. All we have to do is run with it.

Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debates

2007-10-19T15:14:00.001-04:00

Rick Tyler is the Director of Media Relations for Gingrich Communications and serves as the spokesman for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich . He is also a senior partner at Chesapeake Associates, a full service professional campaign consulting firm based in Washington, DC. Today, Tyler came into Professor Walker's class at American University to talk about campaign and debate reform ideas. Here is the gist of what he had to say:

While reminiscing about the Kennedy-Douglas debates, Tyler made it clear that the television is the dominate medium today. Whether it be through video on the internet or the actual t.v., a candidate's presentation is vital in any campaign. In asking the class what was wrong with today's political debate, people in the crowd all shared the same opinion that candidates seem rehearsed; they don't have any personal insight and don't come off as personable, therefore projecting a rather stale image.

The subject of Tyler's presentation soon turned to reformed debate. He echoed Newt Gingrich's plan to renew political debate in America. Through bi-partisan debate with less limitations Tyler believes American politics would greatly change. If candidates debated in a bi-partisan manner they no longer would have to pledge to follow every value of their party. Candidates would be forced to try and appeal to America as a whole, therefore opening up the door to connecting to the many voters who are in the middle. Tyler discussed Gingrich's plan and outline for the Cooper Union Debates. Gingrich invited all of the presidential candidates to participate. So far only Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee have responded. The debate would be 90 minutes long and only feature a time keeper. "It would be an adult discussion," said Tyler, when referring to the renewed political debate. Both Gingrich and Tyler believe this form of debate would change the face of politics and campaigning in America.

The outline of the debate would be as follows: Tyler would like to see the 2 presidential candidates once they are selected by their party partake in 9, 90 minute debates. There would be one a week in the time span after the party conventions and before the November election. The press would no longer set the agenda, and this way candidates could now get to the issues with thought out, thorough positions.

Tyler isn't quite sure if this next presidential election has any hope, but he is optimistic that people will catch on and that things will change. "We are in a period of consultant driven campaigns," said Tyler when describing today's political process. Campaigns start so early because of this. Candidates focus all their attention on raising money and gaining support. "The most valuable asset a candidate has is their thinking and planning time for the future," remarked Tyler. Candidates become utterly exhausted after months and month of begging for money and lose this time. How can it then be expected that they have articulated thoughtful positions?

Tyler turned the floor over to questions from the class to end his presentation. Here are some of the major insights.
1) The media does have an obligation to the public to bring up issues that many people may not know about or care about. But the media is driven by profits, which are driven by ratings, so many of these issues have no relevance to thoughtful political discussion.

2)In terms of campaign finance reform, Tyler would like to see no limits, period. Candidates should be able to receive as much money as possible from a donor as long as it is immediately made public on the internet.

3)Blind issue polls would be a great way to bring attention to positions rather than candidates. This way people necessarily wouldn't be blinded by party affiliation or a person's name. If blind issue polls were taken each week and the media followed them then candidates would undoubtedly be more vocal about their stances on certain issues.

All in all, it was rather interesting to hear Tyler's take on debate and campaign reform ideas. He echoed many of his bosses ideas. Time will only tell if these ideas can be placed into action.

Conservatism, Debate Reform, and FedEx

2007-10-19T13:55:00.000-04:00

Guest speaker Rick Tyler spoke with Dr. Dana Walker’s Dissident Media class at American University on Oct. 19, 2007.

Some background info…

Rick Tyler currently serves as the press spokesman for former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

He is a conservative political strategist, and senior partner at Chesapeake Associates, a professional campaign consulting firm.

Tyler was the Executive Director for the Maine Republican Party for five years before moving to the nation’s capitol, where he is now the Director of Media Relations for Gingrich Communications, according to his website.

Let the live blogging begin.

“It’s not often that a member of Newt Gingrich’s staff gets willingly invited to talk to a college class,” Tyler said, greeting a class of almost 30 laptop-armed students.

He took no time getting started. Asking the class how we decide who to vote for, he received various answers from the class. “We go online,” someone said. “Television,” said another. Tyler explained in his day there were only four major networks, compared to today’s common choice of 500 available satellite channels.

Tyler said there is probably less than 10% of the entire American population paying attention to the presidential election. Keep in mind this blog is coming from a university where nearly every student has a political opinion.

Obviously this statistic doesn’t apply to anyone in the room, Tyler said.

He compared the percentage of his life that’s dedicated to politics compared to that of “normal people.” Ninety percent of his life, he claimed, was encompassed by all things political.

“You’re weird!” Tyler said to the students who claimed they watched Sunday morning talk shows, rather than sleep, watch football, or play golf like “normal people.” He was trying to reiterate that most of the nation doesn’t care most of the time about politicians or political issues.

On the topic of television, Tyler recalled the first-ever televised presidential debate – Nixon v. Kennedy. This debate took place where they now do the Meet the Press with Tim Russert, he said.

“What do you think is wrong with today’s current political debate?” Tyler asked the class.

“It’s too rigid and lifeless…They just give the answers they know the voters want to hear,” replied a student.

“You think people can see through that?” Tyler asked, “I do too.”

Tyler criticized the current debate structure, describing it as unproductive and “ridiculous.”

“What’s your answer on Iraq? Thirty seconds.” The buzzer rings faster than you can say “Uh… well…where do I begin?”

What’s his solution to the rehearsed, rapid-fire, sound byte-laden debates today?

He mentioned that his boss, Newt Gingrich, proposed that two candidates get on stage and talk it out in an anything-goes style forum. If they’re from opposing political parties—great. He also briefly mentioned Newt’s NNN plan, which is discussed further down in this post.

“I’d love to see bipartisan debates. If you put a bunch of republican/democratic candidates in a room full of republican/democratic voters they sound like CrAzY right-/left-wing fanatics!!” he said.

On the subject of registered independent voters, Tyler claimed they “have no voice.” He said they have to wait for the “crazy people” to make up their minds between candidates, before an independent voter can have his or her own choice.

As a registered independent, I don’t react well to this statement. Tyler spoke in front of a class that is structured to force students to have their own voice. The term “dissident,” as in Dissident Media, in itself reflects a minority that do not associate with the mainstream press.

To say someone doesn’t have a voice because they don’t associate with one of the two major parties? I don’t know about that. I understood what he meant, that we need to restructure the debate system to give undecided voters a better opportunity to decide between candidates, but he could’ve worded that more eloquently.

Tyler also spoke of newsworthiness. “Does anyone remember what the media was covering on September 11, 2001?” After a few hints, no one in the audience could recall that this was the summer Chandra Levy went missing. That was to be expected (it was over six years ago).

Newsworthiness is highly influenced by a struggle for ratings, Tyler said, “Why be afraid of freedom? I’d like to see no limits.”

If you’re a candidate, you have the weakest position to define your campaign, Tyler stated.

Tyler then advocated for transparency in government. Right now, campaigns are financed by "bundlers," organizations with names like “Voters for a Better America.” Does anyone actually know where this money is coming from with a name like that?

“I love the five dollar voter.” Big donators are just buying influence, which they get through access.

Tyler asked a number of questions about our lives in a technological age, including ones on floppy disks, records, and rotary phones. Doing so provided a comparison between today's world and the one of only a couple decades ago. Not that this topic needed addressing to a class where nearly every student had a laptop, complete with wireless Internet access, in front of him or her.

This was taken almost directly from Newt Gingrich’s speech at the National Press Club, which is available at the AU library for any AU students reading this. Tyler exemplified the ridiculousness of the fact that FedEx can track about 20 million packages a day, to six-sigma accuracy. Whereas the Federal government can’t track 11 million illegal aliens? Newt Gingrich’s suggested solution: send each illegal alien a package through FedEx or UPS. If that doesn’t get you laughing, check your pulse.

Gingrich calls his debate reform proposal the “Nine Nineties at Nine” plan. Namely, nine candidates speak for ninety minutes every Sunday for nine weeks before the election.

According to Tyler, this plan would allow the candidates to talk about a range of issues for longer periods of time. The debate topics would be chosen by the candidates themselves. This brings us to the question of how do the candidates choose which topics they should discuss?

“Dan Rather essentially got fired by a blogger! Think about that,” Tyler said.

Tyler maintained that the chance a citizen has today of bringing an issue to the attention of the Speaker of the House is much greater, mostly through online blogging, than it was when Gingrich was Speaker. Now, by means of the Internet, voters have more control over which issues get the most attention.

Then the floor opened to questions, of which I include only one.

“What has caused this degenerative debate structure?” one student asked.

Tyler’s answers were money, the financing of campaigns, and the competitive nature of the news media, which has focused people on trivia.

“I think the media has done a terrible job at articulating what people actually get,” Tyler claimed after he explained that every voter only wants to know what he or she will get by electing a candidate.

Talking with Tyler

2007-10-19T12:34:00.000-04:00

Rick Tyler, Newt Gingrich’s Press Secretary and Spokesperson, came to speak for Dr. Dana Walker’s Dissident Media class today. Employed under Newt Gingrich for seven years, Tyler has also professionally trained staff and volunteers for hundreds of candidates. He has spoken about forums and co-hosts an internet radio program on The Right Talk. Mr. Tyler lives in Virginia with his wife and daughter.
After being introduced, he speaks about four major news channels that many used to get their news from while he was growing up. “Walter Cronkite used to end his news broadcasts with, ‘and that’s the way it is’, and we believed it,” states Tyler. “That’s not true today.” He goes on to explain that many people today have technology at their fingertips which allow people to access information via radio, internet, and from a plethora of news sources on television.
He draws several circles on the board to represent the general populace. Asking the class a series of questions such as whether or not they listen to talk radio such as NPR etc., whether or not the students watched Sunday morning political talk shows, and so on. The issue with this lies in the fact that few people in the United States actually do. “You guys are freaks,” he laughs when some students raise their hands about watching Sunday morning shows, “You are in the minority. Most people don’t.”
Healthcare, pensions, and social security are brought up in the speech. He asks the group about the students’ first jobs. Joking with the class that they might not be too concerned with social security because they are all in the “immortal stage” of life at the moment, he brings up the idea that social security is going to be non-existent in a few years. He speaks about Newt Gingrich’s idea of having two or four individuals debating one another about the real issues. Tyler speaks about the fact that putting all of the Democrats in one room to debate one another makes them appear like crazed liberals while doing the same with all Republican candidates make them appear as crazed right wing candidates. This, according to the speaker, simply drives those who are uninterested in keeping up with the news on the presidential campaign race at bay.
He also brought up the idea that independents have no voice. Independent voters are seen as individuals who are simply sitting with no voice until after the “crazed Democrats” and “crazed Republicans” to make up their minds. He believes that real debates with the candidates in small groups will be more appropriate.
Tyler also criticizes the media. Bringing up the main piece covered by the media about Chandra Levy every day leading up to 9/11, he discusses the fact that many said that the attack that day in September was a surprise. He states that the idea is ridiculous because we did have stories which could have warned us about the issues, however the media doesn’t cover them. Although he feels that the story should have been covered, he also believes that it should not have been covered all summer long. Media is run by profits, according to Tyler. The reason that the real issues are not focused upon is because media outlets want more viewers, and therefore will show stories about Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton instead.
Candidate funding is also an important issue. The idea of raising funds that are funded by groups like Citizens for a Better Life is ridiculous because you cannot really tell where money is coming from. He believes candidates should simply state where the money is coming from directly because it is easier to discover what the candidate stands for. Are they supported by the labor unions, big businesses, etc?
American impatience is also a key part of his discussion. The fact that people get impatient over things such as waiting for receipts, ATMs to deposit money, etc is brought up. Tracking and information such as package whereabouts is considered. He asks students to consider why the government is not always run in such a manner. We have illegal immigrants, yet they cannot be traced. The tragedy with Hurricane Katrina was considered, and Tyler speaks about the fact that people should have been able to help more quickly. He also brings up the fact that Americans often tune things out if they are not directly affected by the issue. Politics is often viewed as foreign to many Americans due to the fact that they don’t feel directly involved.
Rick Tyler is incredibly open to questions, and was more than happy to engage in conversation. His speech is quite interesting and has brought up several valid points. The quality of debate and the importance of activism in politics are some crucial issues that the speaker has brought to light. He ends his speech on the reiterated fact that in the 1950s everyone had access to the same news and information. Today, he states, people are able to make up their own “news worlds” in which they take information from their own variety of sources (The Washington Post, RNC, etc.) to create what they find important.

LIVE BLOG: Rick Tyler in class

2007-10-19T11:49:00.000-04:00

Tony Romm
October 19, 2007
LIVE BLOG: Rick Tyler in class
11:49 AM

I'm sorry, Gingrich lovers of the world (or, er, this blog), but if Rick Tyler, his press secretary, is anything like his boss, that entire camp is but a walking contradiction.

I transcribed quite a bit of the discussion and I'd like to post all of it, but I'd clog up the blog. Instead, I figured I'd just analyze some of the more pertinent and contradictory things Tyler said.

And, a final warning: I wrote what I could as fast as I could. I do not promise front page quality journalism.

For starters, consider his analysis of the major problems affecting America:

“There are basically several challenges American faces today that are quite serious, they are, in fact, life threatening, they are in fact, western civilization threatening. First, there are enemies around the world who hate us… You have weapons of mass destruction. You also have weapons of mass disruption… what happens if manufacturers overseas inject a virus into the system and everything collapses? A lot of them are on diversified networks… but you can have mass disruption that hurts out economy. We have trouble on the world… why in the world would you spend millions of dollars when you can drive a pickup truck across a border?”

Thanks, Rick. In a speech that's supposed to be about renewing political debate, you opened with the traditional ode to all things threatening. You invoked 9/11 (if not in name then in spirit) as if to say 'its a matter of life or death that you listen to me.' How... typical.

Then you noted:

“Another threat is competing with China and India, which is a threat all of you have to face (population comparisons). They all want to pursue happiness, like we do. We always imported talent, but today that’s changing. If it’s so hard to come to the US and create jobs in the US, why don’t they just do it at home? Now I have a feeling that the US will stay competitive for the next 50 years if the us reforms taxation…, immigration, health.”

“If we don’t have choices of higher quality and lower costs, the system is broken. Now, how do we get to those challenges? I don’t hear insightful commentary on this… In both the democratic and the republican base, you have 9 candidates like seals, waiting for someone to throw them a fish for 9 seconds. So when Newt Gingrich proposed… to have no more than two candidates get on stage – and I don’t care if they’re from same parties on different parties.

Oh, that oozes conservatism. I didn't think I attended class today to be indoctrinated. I thought renewing political debate was an issue that far transcends partisan politics. Guess I was wrong. In pairing conservative issues with progressive reforms, Tyler is taking advantage of students who aren't questioning his rhetoric.

There is no greater example of this than Tyler's quick yet caustic statement about independent voters. Asking students to raise their hands, he remarked:

“If you sit it out in the primaries, you don’t have a choice... don’t get a chance to vote."

Really, Mr. Tyler? I’m registered independent, and I raised my hand. Does this mean that I’m uninformed or unwilling to participate? Quite the contrary, I'd imagine. How can one profess to revolutionize the election system yet belittle third parties and alternative movements? How can one tell a group of students that they ought to defect to the republican or democratic parties in order to have a say? Essentially, Mr. Tyler, you’re arguing that we should reject candidates who aren't mainstream, accept the system how it is and vote accordingly. Doesn't that contradict everything you JUST told us about reinvigorating debate?

And just when I thought my rage subsided, Tyler asked the class to voice the issues they believe most affected Americans. Money, politics, Iraq... whatever... but one of the issues a classmate voiced was gay rights, an issue I personally feel is immensely important.

But Tyler quickly dismissed that notion: “How many people do you think rank gay rights on the top of the list? Only 2-3%. But the media spends so much time talking about it anyway,” he said.

He quickly clarified his off-key statement when a friend of mine called him out on it. He emphasized the importance of agenda-setting, but didn't really touch the issues of gay rights.

How convenient, right? Tyler keeps silent on issues he lacks a strategy to address; he dances around the issue. In other words, Tyler does the same thing the politicians he criticizes does. Another hypocrisy.

Even better, Tyler's remarks on campaign finance reform:

“Important people in today’s campaigns are bundlers… Bundlers are people who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. The candidate is the single most valuable resource in a campaign, and they take that candidates time to seek money… But the most valuable thing a candidate has is thinking and planning time. If you [take time away from] a candidate, how are they supposed to think and plan?”

Excellent, excellent analysis. I agree. Let's keep listening:

“I would like to see… why be afraid of freedom, I’d like to see no limits (fundraising limits)... PACS and interest groups can get into a campaign and influence it and define you and your campaign... Unions, corporations and individuals can raise as much as they want but the moment that check comes it, it goes up on the internet so people can see”

What. You can't emphasize open dialog and the need for issue-specific debate when you restrict politics to the richest and most effective fundraisers. I was appalled, to say the least.

After brooding over that idea, I decided to ask my own question. As I posted in a previous blog and comment, campaign contributions are a big concern in 2008. With mainstream networks turning fundraising successes into big headlines (re: my Obama criticism), it seems only the richest candidates survive. It seems the politicians are more accountable to big donors than tiny voters.

And you know what Tyler said?

"Campaign finance reform didn’t solve those problems, I don’t think any of that has changed. But I think the American people are very smart, they don’t always pay attention, but if you give them the right information, they’ll make the right decision… but if they saw one person donating a billion dollars, the people would see that and not vote for them. Its got to be transparent, people need to know where the money is coming from and what its purpose is. When we invented campaign finance reform after Watergate, there was no way to be reporting information, now we can with the internet."

Again, nothing. No specific answer to my question, no concern for the little voter who only meagerly pays attention to politics. Apparently, transparency legitimizes inequality. Cause that’s not oligarchical.

And that's when I stopped listening and started typing. Sure, Tyler and Gingrich are dead on in terms of renewing and reinvigorating political debates. But both are the same old, same old, as I predicted. Both reek of the same dirty, unaccountable politics this blog has sought to criticize. I'd hate to say I told you so, but I did. The truth (when someone's willing to tell it) hurts.

A sad day, indeed.

Question for Guest Speaker

2007-10-16T19:41:00.001-04:00

I am going into PR (hopefully), so I will be in contact with a lot of people who work with the press or as press spokesmen or women. My question isn't so much about Newt Gingrich or politics but more about how you handle your job. What is a typical day like for you?

Thanks,
Anna

The Death Penalty

2007-10-16T18:42:00.000-04:00

As I was reading the Washington Post today, I saw an article about the death penalty. This is particularly interesting for me because my dad works in the DA's office in Philadelphia, in the appeals office, and deals a lot with death penalty cases. He has actually argued in front of the Supreme Court twice, both times about minor details concerning the death penalty.

First of all, I am definitely against the death penalty. Having said that, there are some really horrible people in the world who do deserve it. I've had lots of talks with my dad about this, and pretty much you have to do something REALLY bad to get the death penalty (obviously). We hear about the death penalty a lot because it's such a controversial issue, but not that many people receive it.

This particular article is about lethal injection. It is "inhumane," but I mean really, the death penalty itself is inhumane.

What does everyone else think? I know this is a touchy issue and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Here's the article from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501759.html

Thanks,
Anna

Dworkin, Debate Scholar

2007-10-16T10:30:00.000-04:00

“I think our politics are in an appalling state, and I doubt that many of you would disagree with that. We don't have a rational discourse, and the greatest casualty of our dumbed-down politics is the lack of argument.” –Ronald Dworkin, from a transcript published by the Carnegie Council.

Ronald Dworkin is better known as a legal philosopher, but he is also a debate scholar. He wrote a book titled, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate. In the book, he stresses the need for conservatives and liberals to understand that they are not enemies, but have the same goal: Bettering America.

He goes on to insist that debaters must have at least a few shared principles in order to form discussion. Without a common ground, campaigns become wars. This trend is recognizable if one considers the Republican vs. Democrat, Conservative vs. Liberal, Red vs. Blue, grudge-match image that is promoted by the media. Unfortunately for the American constituency, the biggest loser is always rational discourse.

By focusing on their basic commonalities they can transcend petty squabbling. As he puts it, “this will lead to substantive political debate among people who mutually respect each other.”- Ronald Dworkin

Writer for The Guardian, Jonathan Derbyshire criticized Dworkin’s book in his blog:

“He envisages a “partnership” model of democracy, in which public reasoning and debate are placed at the centre of political and policy justification. This deliberative conception functions as a sort of utopian ideal, but since Dworkin is doing political philosophy here and not advocacy, his book is none the worse off for it.” –retrieved 10/16/2007

Derbyshire’s analysis of Dworkin’s book is right on point. Is Democracy Possible Here provides an interesting dialogue about the ramifications of the debate crisis. His solution to the problem is a bit unrealistic.

Can Mike Huckabee and Hilary Clinton bonding over their mutual appreciation of something vague like civil liberty, lead them to a rational debate about abortion?

I doubt it.

Al Gore: Old Man? …Or Spry Youngster?

2007-10-16T01:43:00.000-04:00

In an interview with the Associated Press, Ron Fournier, online political analyst, makes an intriguing argument about Al Gore’s undeniable fierceness in the political spectrum. Fournier argues that Gore would be a “formidable” competitor in the democratic presidential race. Despite his potential threat, however, Fournier notes that each of the democratic candidates rushed to send Gore words of congratulations after he was honored with a Nobel Prize. Fournier argues that, despite his potential threat for the democratic candidates, they seek his endorsement because he is such a popular figure in the media. In the interview, Fournier also brings an interesting idea to the table – Gore for President: 2012. After I stopped contemplating whether or not the Oval Office is walker accessible, I actually considered this idea. Could Gore potentially run in 2012? Or even, dare I say it, in 2008?!

Perhaps his stern dedication to the Global Warming crisis is his way of warming the hearts of liberals and conservatives alike to gain support for a potential future election. I suppose only time will tell what the future has in store for Gore, but until it does, I’ll speculate.

Interactivity

2007-10-16T00:30:00.001-04:00

"Renewing" political debate...
I've tried to always stay on track with my blogs, and not wander too far from our class blog's actual mission. Inspired by the words of Newt Gingrich, my posts have concentrated on either debate topics, or on actual political involvement. How responsive the 2008 presidential candidates are with their constituents, how they interact with the media (whether they use it to their advantage or not), and how they embrace technology.
Consider this post my "midterm blog." It'll focus on the involvement of the candidates. Before this semester I had never blogged, or even spent a notable amount of time at someone else's blog. Now I recognize that it is a useful tool in the ever-growing technological age. This post is going to demonstrate (hopefully) all that I have learned about blogging this semester (labeling, adding pictures, etc...)
...
I wanted to get the attention of the people that this blog is actually about - the presidential candidates. I figure the best way to contact them is in an informal way, one in which they are likely to respond. Now, I know that the candidates themselves may not be the ones checking their MySpace accounts everyday, but I went out and friended 16 of them anyway.
As for the democratic candidates, I checked the profiles, and requested friendship with democratic candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson. For republican candidates, I friended Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson.
Once they confirm the friend requests, I'll be able to post on their walls, and send them messages...this is where I'll send them a link to our blogs and ask them to take a look, and maybe even write a quick response to some of their favorite posts.
It's encouraging to know the candidates have learned where to find the young voters, and are now trying to reach us at OUR level. They have accepted the fact that they must come to us, and the Internet is the easiest way to reach the Y generation.
Their participation in the YouTube debates (YouChoose '08) is only one example of their efforts to reach a wider array of voters; the fact that almost every presidential candidate has a MySpace profile is another.
The candidates whose names are linked above, were chosen because I felt their MySpace profiles were the best of the 16 that I checked out. They (or someone working for them) took the time to make their profile as user-friendly and interactive as possible. The three I linked were chosen based on several criteria: the last time they checked/updated their profile, how long their "wall" was, the personal information they included, and how much interactive/informational "stuff" they had in their profiles.
Actually as I'm blogging right now, Dennis Kucinich is online.
So, if the candidates are going online for the sake of our generation - we'd better meet them there. I've learned that it's possible to make my voice heard, and intend to do just that when I contact the candidates. I don't expect them to respond after just one post on their "Wall," which is why I'll try to contact them through their homepages, and maybe if I get brave enough.. I'll post a video on YouTube.. Who knows..

A Staffers Insight

2007-10-16T00:16:00.001-04:00

This blog is the home of much dialogue about the 2008 elections, the candidates and debate issues. To get a more insightful view into the world of politics I went to the experts. Well, they might not be experts in the sense of conducting research and years of studying, but they work for the politicians. This semester I work on Capitol Hill for my Congressman, Maurice Hinchey form the 22nd district of New York, and the other day I took some time to ask one of the staffers a few questions.

My first question was: does the Congressman support or like one candidate more than the others? The staffer answered by saying that Congressmen do not usually say anything until the nominations are set. This way all the democrats can get behind the democrat and likewise for the republicans. However, since my Representative is from New York he is more or less obligated to support Hillary, but he has said nothing publicly. This answer got me thinking. Everyone gets to say who they like and don’t like and everyone gets to say the issue that is most important to them, expect for our politicians. This is a bit ironic; after all, the members of Congress are going to be the ones that need to work with the next president. If anyone should be guiding the public’s decisions, it should be those who know most of the candidates personally, and in some cases their colleagues.

Another question I asked was about campaign finance. Campaign finance has been the topic of many blogs and I thought I would try to get a deeper insight. I asked the staffer, who is a legislative assistant that handles a variety of domestic issues, what her thoughts were. She believes that too much money is invested into presidential campaigns. Consequently, candidates such Joe Biden, who has tremendous experience and is a great candidate with great ideas, is not given a chance. At the root of the problem are big business and certain interest groups that can donate a lot of money. Raising money is part of the game, she said, but if each candidate was given or allotted a certain amount the game would get more interesting. Spending money would become a strategic game. Since a candidate is only given so much money, it would become more important to do well at debates.

I asked several other questions, however, I felt these went along with the theme of the blog and were the most interesting to examine. So, now we have the view of someone who works in politics. Congressional staffers are the geeks of politics who have a unique insight to the world of politics.

Federal Budget

2007-10-15T22:47:00.000-04:00

With all of the posts it is becoming harder to find a political topic that someone has not already covered. In my opinion the focus on the presidential race and the vast sums of money their raising has overshadowed other issues. My issue of choice is the federal budget, which is so irreparably damaged with all the war spending that most have given up of fixing it in the next few years. Our current account deficit for fiscal year 2008 stands at 258 billion dollars. The total debt is a staggering $9,048,823,310,499.34. Crunching the numbers that is $29,837.91 per person, which is about $3,000 more then the median individual income or almost three times the budget for the fiscal year 2008. Its current pace is an increase of a paltry $1.4 billion dollars a day. The payments on the interest of this debt alone are more then the federal government spends on medicare/medicaid.

Where does all the money go?

Well after searching through countless federal spreadsheets on the government website that the breakdown goes something like this.

Fiscal Year 2008:

Total Budget = 2,941,121,000,000
Social Security = 655,564,000,000 or 22.3%
Medicare/Medicaid* = 404,511,000,000 or 13.8%
Military** = 624,638,000,000 or 21.2%
Interest on Debt = 469,919,000,000 or 16%

These four sections add up to 73.3% of the total budget.

Education = 58,603,000,000 only 2% :-(

I couldn't find a clean pie chart or break down for the current fiscal year so I had to obtain these numbers from individual spread sheets, if anyone wants to check my math feel free.

* Obviously doesn't include state contributions to the program
** military spending does not include any kind of retirement benefits or veterans administration cost, it also does not include costs for the FBI or CIA

A New Era...

2007-10-15T17:15:00.000-04:00

The Americas are on the verge of a new political revolution. Along with the United States own presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, there has been a similar spur of female presidential candidates in Latin America as well.

Last year Veronica Michelle Bachelet Jeria became the first woman to become president of Chile in Chile’s entire history. She beat her opposition, Sebastian Pinera, last year with 53.5% of the votes. She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile's free market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the country's gap between rich and poor. She was inaugurated on March 11, 2006.

Bachelet is not the only woman in Latin America to go for the presidency. Christina Fernandez de Kirchner is currently Argentina's glamorous First Lady but is assured to be Argentina's next president. Her husband, Argentina's current president, Nestor Kirchner first became governor of a small southern province of Santa Cruz and then became president in 2003. The couple moved to the capital, Buenos Aires, and decided that Kirchner would run in 2003 instead of Fernandez since he had a better understanding of economic policy and was better suited to lead a country that was on the verge of bankruptcy like Argentina was at the time. Under Kirchner Argentina made a remarkable economic recovery and had four straight years of economic growth.

(Nestor Kirchner and Christina Fernandez)

The switching between the spouses of the presidency is claimed by Fernandez to be, "part of an effort to set an example of relinquishing power in a country that has seen too many leaders overstay their welcome at the presidential palace." However, critics claim that this is only a elaborate scheme to bypass the constitutional ban on being in office more than two consecutive years. Interestingly enough if Hillary Clinton won the presidency next year than it will mark the ruling of the United States by two families for a quarter of a century.

With all these strong women entering the political sphere it is only a matter of time before female presidents stop being taboo and become another common aspect of our societies.

Talk Monkey - Renewing Political Debate

Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC

RIOT VILLAGE

Blog Paper

Blog Paper

Blogging: A Mosaic of Dissident Information

Final Blog Paper

Blog Paper

Why, sometimes, bloggers need to shut up

A Blogging World

The Marriage of Activism and Blogging

Dissident Media: The Blog?

Oops, sources.

Blog Paper

Blogging as a Dissident Media

Is Blogging Dissident?

The Blogging Experience for Whatever It's Worth

Blog Paper

Blogging: Accessible, Cheap, Dissident

Blogosphere and the Dissident Voice

All The News Thats Fit to Blog

Blogs: A Unique Opportunity for Dissidence

The Blogosphere: A Modern Source of Dissidence

Works Cited

Blogging

The Good, The Bad, The Blog

Blogging Is Dissident

Blogging and its Contributions to Media

Blogging for Dissident Media:

Blogging as a form of dissident media*

Blog Paper

Debates Losing Focus of Meaning

Trick or Treat comes early for DC Votes

Political Debate the American Way

Planetary Emergency

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

Being Emo about Dissident Media

The Language Debate

Georgetown Protest Gets a Wide Variety of Coverage

Radical Cheerleading: A New Means of Activist Expression

Jimmy Carter on Darfur

Progress in Politics Forum

Giuliani is most electable?

Gingrich Speech

Have We Lost the Edge? long blog post

Long Blog Post-White House Correspondents Event

Humor Group -- Long Blog

Last Week's Speaker

Who's watching?

New York Times takes a tip from YouTube

WANTED (Dead or Alive): Modern Political Debate

Not so revolutionary protest

Colbert '08

Sexism in the Media

Long Blog -- Humor Group

Force the Candidates to TALK!

News Media, Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debate

Rick Tyler's ideas

Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debates

Conservatism, Debate Reform, and FedEx

Talking with Tyler

LIVE BLOG: Rick Tyler in class

Tony RommOctober 19, 2007LIVE BLOG: Rick Tyler in class11:49 AM

Question for Guest Speaker

The Death Penalty

Dworkin, Debate Scholar

Al Gore: Old Man? …Or Spry Youngster?

Interactivity

A Staffers Insight

Federal Budget

A New Era...

Tony Romm
October 19, 2007
LIVE BLOG: Rick Tyler in class
11:49 AM