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.