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?

Gingrich Speech

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

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

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

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

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?

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.