The Big Finish...on a Less Serious Note...

For my last post, I would like to talk about my own little media guilty pleasure. Here it goes…I am an avid reader of the New York Times Arts Section. There I said it. When push comes to shove, I am more interested in what’s happening in the music, art, and theater world than I am in politics. I know, I should care more about the more “serious” subjects in the news, but I firmly believe that the various outlets of personal expression are as important to our society as any political news. It should also be noted at this point that I double majored in Music and Art History as an undergraduate, and I am planning to pursue a career in singing, so my opinions may be more than slightly biased.
Some of my favorite pieces on the site are the videos and audio slideshows that have become integral to the site. They often include audio clips from operas they are discussing, like their coverage of John Adam’s Doctor Atomic at the Metropolitan Opera (http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/10/12/arts/1194822981488/scenes-from-doctor-atomic.html?scp=2&sq=doctor%20atomic&st=cse), or coverage of special events celebrating the arts, like this past week’s video covering the Alvin Ailey Dance Company’s 50th Anniversary Gala (http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/arts/urbaneye/1194811622319/index.html#1194834813698). This is all in addition to the countless reviews of theatrical and musical productions, as well as announcements of new exhibitions, going on in and around the city. Above all, the arts section, for me at least, provides a welcome distraction from the current news stories taking over the Time’s front page. I hope this little rambling of mine has given some of you readers incentive to check out other parts of your paper besides the front page seriousness :)

Puppetry of...the Media?

So I must confess that when I open up my internet browser, my homepage is the New York Times website. I’ve been reading the paper since I was little, and I tend to think that the writing is on the whole fairly unbiased. Maybe this is because I’ve grown up with it and believe most of the views the journalists are inevitably feeding me, or maybe it’s because I’m New Yorker
Yesterday, when opening my browser, the picture and main headline on the site caught my attention. But instead of covering a national topic, like Obama’s recent election of his cabinet members, the Times chose to zero in on a local human interest subject, with an article entitled, “Forget Citigroup, Puppet Show Needs a Bailout” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/theater/02pupp.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=arts). It tells of a charming little marionette theater in a “decidedly scrappy edge of downtown Los Angeles” that has been entertaining children for almost fifty years, but is now facing potential bankruptcy, with the owner of the establishment (and head puppeteer) owing over $30,000 in debt.
This story caught my attention because it came off to me as so liberally biased. The writer stresses the importance of the theater as a quaint, anti-commercialist venture that has not changed for five decades and has been pleasing children with puppets and old-fashioned ice-cream. She goes on to say that the marionette theater is a “charming throwback” in comparison to the Hollywood theaters where “organic certifications of birthday cakes are debated at length on Web sites,” and that without this theater, many lower-class children in the area would never have the opportunity to see a live production. Clearly, this writer has an agenda to highlight the importance of small-town businesses that provide the same services as those found in corporate America, with more charm and down-to-earth roots. I’m not saying that I don’t agree, but by putting this article on the front page of its website, the New York Times is making a statement about its tendencies towards liberal bias.

Bailouts and Media Interpretations

After looking at numerous news websites, it is clear that the media is all over the potential bailout requested by the three major American automobile companies. What gets interesting among these sights, however, is HOW the journalists are infusing their own biases onto the event. BBC News seemed to be the most objective in its interpretation of the events, simply giving a blow-by-blow of how GM, Ford, and Chrysler have asked Congress for a 25 million dollar bailout (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7736301.stm). There is little if any opinion injected into the article, as it merely recounts the events of the hearing itself.
By contrast, I then went and looked at an article from an American paper, the New York Times, and there was quite a difference in the amount of slant involved (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/politics/18web-sanger.html?_r=1&hp). Even in the first sentence, the writer (David E. Sanger) points out that “it might be worth pausing for a moment to ask what this latest bailout exercise is intended to accomplish.” Sanger then goes on to question what the government can actually do and what can potentially be done in the next few days leading up to Thanksgiving, and the next few months leading up to the new presidential term. Unlike BBC, the New York Times focuses less on mere reportage of events and more on opinionated interpretations of them.
The question of which article communicates more useful information to the public is debatable. I would argue that the BBC article is more appropriate for its international audiences, who might not necessarily want more than simple coverage of events going on in the United States. By contrast, the American public, currently in the midst of this economic crisis, will be much more interested in having interpretations of what’s going on with bailout programs served to them on a silver platter. The New York Times is no doubt a reputable source, and reading Sanger’s article could easily provide an American reader with helpful and “serious” opinions and ideas about what is going on in the world around them.

Palin, Post-Election

I am finding that reading newspapers and online articles is much less exciting and gossip-filled now that the election is over. Still, I found an article on the New York Times website published today entitled “Rehashing ’08 and Rehearsing, Perhaps, for ’12” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/us/politics/12watch.html?ref=us). The article chronicles Sarah Palin’s post-election “speed date with history,” as she relentlessly moves from one reporter to the next to tell her side of the story after all is said and done. I think what is perhaps most interesting about this article is that Palin admits that, after all the attacks on her character and family by the media, her “trust in the news media…has been shaken.”
I find it extremely interesting that after the election has been decided, journalists are willing to give Palin more sympathy in their writing. Perhaps this is because she did not win the election (thank goodness!), or perhaps because she did not give too many news interviews to journalists during the election, but in any case, the shift in media attention from ridicule and anger to sympathy and understanding is quite interesting. By the same token, Sarah Palin, although admittedly less trusting of the media than she was before the election, is now seemingly seeking out every journalist she can get her hands on to invite them to Alaska for dinner and to discuss her plans for the future. Clearly, Palin understands the power of the media and how it can potentially help her in her possible efforts for the presidential nomination in the next four years. It’s funny how individuals and the media can have such love-hate relationships that reveal themselves in public forum, don’t you think?

Obamamercial...and YouTube!

I thought that today, two days after the Obama infomercial ran on a number of major television networks, there would be more substantial commentary by the mass media. Unfortunately, I must say I have found little on the subject on any of the major news sites. There was only slight mention of it on CNN in relation to their poll tracker- they included the event as one of the key points in the campaign, but decided not to elaborate. I thought Fox News would be all over the infomercial, blasting Obama’s message to pieces the best they could. Instead, the focus of the articles on the main page seems to pretty much emphasize McCain and Palin’s actions, with a headline entitled “McCain Predicts Late-Night Win on Election Day.” It’s funny that every other media site I’ve visited predicts that his prediction is incorrect, but that’s beside the point.
The ONLY article I could find regarding the infomercial was on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31rate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin). However, it wasn’t commenting on the content within the commercial, but instead focused on how the program was extremely well viewed and how the viewer turnouts on the major channels with the infomercial were substantially greater than their turnout with regularly scheduled programs. SO LAME! Give me some opinions from pundits who care! Sheesh
In other news, in my search I found an interesting link on BBC News to an article called “Top hits of the YouTube Election” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7699509.stm). The fact that the international media is commenting on the effects of online popular media sites underscores the rising importance in the role of entertainment in politics.

Brits dish out Best Coverage...?

After sifting through various news sites to find coverage on the final days before the election, I found that the best article was found on the BBC website. The article covers the candidates’ campaign through the key state of Pennsylvania, and I considered it to be the best because the writer took the time to give ample coverage of both campaign trails (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7695176.stm). The article includes key quotations said by both McCain and Obama on the trail, as well as video clips of campaign speeches. I thought it was especially readable for a busy public consumer because there were also subtitles within the article, giving the reader a sense of the facts if one had to merely skim the material. The writer pays special attention to remain as objective as possible, making the point at the beginning and end of the piece that, although Obama is up by at least five points in all the major polls, this does not mean decisive victory and the election is by no means won by either party.
It figures that the most objective and readable article I could find about the American presidential election was written and published by the non-American press. I guess this makes sense, since American journalists must do their best to strike a balance; on the one hand they must write news stories that are politically driven as objectively as possible while on the other they are themselves members of the American public who have their own political opinions. I am aware that this is an obvious point by now, but it’s always good to remember that journalists are people too!

Obama...McCain...debating...again...

After watching the debate, I got a sense that both candidates were (unconsciously) doing their best to adhere to what we decided were the six enduring values of journalism. The candidates brought up poor little Joe the Plumber twenty-four different times in the debate. McCain seemed to broach the subject to not only put down Obama and his economic values, but also to ally himself with the Everyman of America who builds his dreams from nothing and lives out the American dream. McCain’s attempts to show his allegiance with the common people is a palpable reference to what he wants us to believe is his respect for and connection to small town “pastoralism.”
Meanwhile, in response, Obama went on to describe his plans for the economy and taxes to the American people should he become elected. His analysis of the economy in addition to his comments regarding the similarities between McCain’s and Bush’s economic plans reflects Obama’s favoring of “responsible capitalism.” I say this under the assumption that the American people consider Bush’s fiscal policies to be less than responsible, especially during our current economic crisis.
I dunno what else to say concerning these values of journalism in relation to the debate, though I think it’s clear that Obama and McCain are generally aiming for different sectors of the six values. McCain is definitely geared toward focusing on ethnocentricity, his affiliations with small town pastorale Americans, and his own story as an individual standing up for his country blablabla. Obama, meanwhile, tries to make his economic policies appear to be responsible capitalism (rather than socialism…but that’s a whole other story), while caring for the environment and standing behind altruistic democracy.

Preparing for Tomorrow's Election...kinda...

So in preparation for tomorrow night’s final presidential debate, I wanted to see how the media was covering the event before it actually happened. I searched through a number of reputable websites, including New York Times, BBC, and yes, even Fox News. Unfortunately, they did not have anything discussing the final debate in any depth. How frustrating! I, as an American citizen who would like to take part in the political discussions, was rather disappointed by the media’s lack of coverage leading up to what can be thought to be the most important debate for this election.
At last I come to CNN.com, which has an article about tomorrow’s debate entitled “McCain’s Last Stand at Final Debate?” (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/debate.preview/index.html) The article puts the debate in context with the past week’s events since the last debate, noting the connection between Obama and Bill Ayers. Besides that, what I thought was really interesting was CNN’s decision to interview Bob Schieffer, tomorrow night’s debate moderator, as well as to scope out the requests from both parties for the debate itself. Bob Schieffer is quoted as saying, point blank, he will not be embarrassed to re-ask questions in order to get clear specific answers. In addition, both parties requested air conditioning above the heads of their candidates in order to avoid excess perspiration, as well as clear water glasses that are identical to the ones used in previous debates. Reading about how the candidates prepare before a debate was interesting as well. Perhaps it’s because I’m a performer, but I found it very illuminating to hear about the “behind-the-scenes” work of the candidates; instead of seeing and reading about the Obama and McCain that are directly in the limelight, it was refreshing to read about them as actual people, not just as politicians and celebrities.

Palin and Biden...and Knock 'Em Sock 'Ems?

So I went onto newyorktimes.com on Saturday to see how the Vice Presidential debate was being presented. I went to the picture and caption on the main page, entitled “Palin and Biden Go Head to Head.” Sounds promising, right? Well, it turns out that clicking on either the photograph of the caption would lead me not to an article, but to a slideshow with photographs and captions. I thought “okay…this could work…” But instead of highlighting the important issues discussed in the debate, or even discussing the VP candidates and their differing body language and verbal tactics, most of the 11 slides were not about the debate at all. Sure, the first slide covers the who and where of the debate, and slide number 5 captures the moment when the candidates first meet (commenting on Palin’s question “Can I call you Joe?”), but it’s pretty downhill from here. The following slides include VP Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robot Gaming at Washington University, and plenty of “who’s watching the debate” slides, be it students on campus or Republican voters in Utah. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/10/03/us/politics/10022008LATEDEBATE_index.html

This is the first thing I can find about the debate on the NEW YORK TIMES?? I get that someone who might not want to watch the debate would want to get the sound byte version from the news, but I found this slideshow to be less than informative. Yes, there was an article that I did eventually find about the debate on the website that contained more substance, but what busy American citizen is going to spend ten minutes snooping around a news website for their news. Bad NYT…Bad Paper!

Anyone find a succinct, interesting, and relatively “unbiased” account of the debate? I’d love to hear your input…

DebateDebateDebate...

So I watched the debate last Friday night, and then awaited the expected barrage of media opinions and criticisms. I have to say though…I didn’t see too much bombastic writing in the mainstream online newspapers. Even though most noted that both McCain and Obama both took jabs at the other in one topic or another, many called the debate a “draw” for both candidates with no clear winner. I think that the media’s position on this event is correct, considering the debate itself. I also it correct in the sense that the media’s position isn’t tarnishing the public’s opinion of the event itself with writer’s own strong opinions. I admit that choosing certain sound bytes or video clips by the media for the public to consume is in itself an imposition of an editor or writer’s opinion, and that is inevitable. What really gets to me is when writers of newspaper articles (NOT editorials, I might add!) are so intent on spewing their own opinions in what I consider to be an area of the news that is meant to be as “objective” as possible. But I digress…
One of the elements that I find most helpful in watching this debate and understanding the effects of certain events on public opinion are the variety of polls that are found in graph format online. The most useful visual I’ve found is on the BBC website, since it shows a variety of polls and how public opinion has shifted over time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm). The polls allow the public to see what other Americans think of the presidential candidates without the direct opinions of the media inserted into the information.
I guess as I write this I realize that I am wary of the opinions of the media, since they are such a small community in relation to the billions of people in the world, as Charlie Beckett describes in “Supermedia.” Am I paranoid? Should we all be listening to these people simply because they chose this profession? What do you think?

Editing the News: Why and When???

Over the weekend I read a very interesting article on the New York Times website about how journalists have been extremely cautious in their choice of words when discussing our current economy. As a spokesman for the Wall Street Journal said, writers are avoiding words like “panic,” “pandemonium,” “apocalypse,” and “crash.” But what I found really interesting was a comment made by Andrew Server, managing editor of Fortune magazine, who said that, although they are still spreading the news “very carfully,” he wonders, “How do you say ‘There’s panic out there, but don’t panic?’ And is it even our responsibility to say, ‘Don’t panic.’? ” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/media/22press.html)
It is certain that the choice of words a journalist uses can spin an article in one way or another, and in this case writers are doing their best to maintain stability in what seems to be a very volatile economic climate. My question is this: why is the media so tentative with JUST economic issues? Why is it okay for the news to pussy foot around our current financial crisis, and in the same breath tear apart the character and families of those in this year’s election?
It seems to me the difference in these two situations lies in the media’s knowledge of their own power over the American public. Realizing the media’s “authority” on the complicated economic issues in Wall Street, and understanding the media’s power to shape the concerns or calm the nerves of the American people, journalists are taking the time to self edit and curb potential “pandemonium.” In turn, I believe that the media doesn’t see itself as such a strong force in influencing in the election…why would these journalists be so biased and uncompromising if they did? Perhaps they want to shift their public’s opinions to their own…but isn’t that why editorials were created? These are all just questions I am thinking about and would be interested to hear some of your input.

Palin- Politician or Just a Pretty Face?

Is it me, or is listening to everyone and their mom talk about Sarah Palin and her “sordid” family and numerous “scandals” getting kind of old? I know that this scrutiny by the media has been and will continue to be a large part of the upcoming election in November, but certainly it is because there is a woman playing a prominent role in this year’s race that I, and the rest of America, are suddenly taking greater notice. It’s true…there has only been one woman on the presidential nomination ticket before (Geraldine Ferraro), and if McCain were to win, Palin’s vice presidency would be historic. But much of the media has started treating her not as the same political figure like the male vice presidential candidates who have come before her, but as some sort of female celebrity. In the past week, she’s been on a number of celebrity magazine covers, and Tina Fey has brilliantly spoofed her likeness on Saturday Night Live (check it out- it’s hilarious). But my main problem with this scenario is that Sarah Palin’s plans for the vice presidency are being put on the back burner in favor of her looks! It really became clear to me the other day that misogyny is still growing strong when I can saw “hot” pictures of Sarah Palin on the ever popular celebrity gossip website, perezhilton.com. I am by no means some kind of raging feminist, but as a woman I am left wondering…what about her foreign policies or her thoughts about any social policy BESIDES abortion (I think we all know her thoughts on that thanks to the media bashing our heads in about it)? I dare mass media to show the public a greater understanding of what Sarah Palin is about as a potential president to this country, not as just a woman with a pretty face and slim figure.