Blogging Is Dissident

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

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:

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*

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

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

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

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

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

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: 

1. Change a light Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
   
2. 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!
   
3. Recycle more
You can save 2.400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste.
   
4. 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!
   
5. 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).
   
6. Avoid products with a lot of packaging
You can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide if you cut down your garbage by 10%.
   
7. 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.
   
8. Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.
   
9. 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.
   
10. 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

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.

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

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

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

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

“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

[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

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?

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?