Dear Jay Rosen,

I find your ideas fascinating, but since I haven't gotten an email back from you I'm going to apply your arguments to the Bobby Jindal campaign:

Jay Rosen, a writer for the MediaShift Idea Lab has been writing about the shifting presence of the media for years. The excerpt below is from an essay written in 2003, but I think it's particularly relevant for our discussion on the changing face of The Atlantic:

"We need to keep the press from being absorbed into The Media. This means keeping the word press, which is antiquated. But included under its modern umbrella should be all who do the serious work in journalism, regardless of what technology they use. The people who will invent the next press in America--and who are doing it now online--continue an experiment at least 250 years old. It has a powerful social history and political legend attached."

In other words, bloggers and internet journalists (citizen and professional alike) aren't reinventing the wheel; they're continuing the hallowed tradition of the free press. In general, blogs are representations of "public opinion." Normal people who otherwise wouldn't have their voices heard can communicate with millions via the internet. So, how does this change campaigning, especially for Bobby Jindal and The Atlantic? Exploring political blogs can give insight into the stories and people that the public wants to see covered. Are a lot of bloggers talking about Olympia Snow? Mike Huckabee? Bobby Jindal? Well, then The Atlantic should cover those people, or a particular story associated with them. The beginnings of a grassroots campaign for Sarah Palin 2012 are already solidifying. The Atlantic has to keep its ear to the ground as other potential players come to the fore.

Within the next year, I imagine that bloggers will start to seriously vie for their chosen candidates, much like what happened during '06 and '07. The Atlantic must keep these grassroots bloggers abreast, perhaps doing an interview with some of the larger names in the near future. The 2012 election is too far away to start naming potential candidates without the guise of interviewing a blogger, rather than a candidate. No one wants to see a candidate look too eager too early. The tricky part of the next year and a half is getting people interested without over exposing anyone. A segment every other month on a different blogger who endorses a different candidate would be a good way to give the public a heads up and a taste of things to come.

Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama: The comparions begin! (And, probably won't end)

Just the other day, the Washington Post had an interesting article that declared "Jindal May Prove To be Republicans' Version of Obama." The article states,

Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives.

Social conservatism appears to be the new "it" thing for Iowa Republicans, probably because they already view Obama as too liberal. Jindal fits into this mold well. He has very conservative policies, and, much like Palin and Huckabee, checks every box on the right.

What can Jindal do now? It's clear that Huckabee and Palin see themselves at the future of Washington Republicanism, but Jindal is the Governor of a state that has been in turmoil since 2005. For now, Jindal appears to be focused on Louisiana, instead of a White House bid. This seems like the best approach, but that doesn't mean that someone (meaning me) from The Atlantic shouldn't keep an eye on him, just in case he does something of note. It's good to highlight the achievements and disappointments of contenders, even if they haven't officially stated that they're contenders yet.

Barack Obama had a lot of early buzz, and because of it, most of the potentially damaging stories were aired out during the early stages of the campaign. The longer one is in the public eye, the longer they're scrutinized, but sometimes that can be beneficial. Getting to say your piece early is helpful in politics and Jindal is in on the ground floor.

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal - though I may not agree with most of his policies, I think he's an impressive figure. Look at his Wiki Profile:

"Following high school, Jindal attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy.^[7] Although he had thought of a career in medicine or law and was accepted by Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, he chose to pursue a political career. He received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar."

So, how does one parlay these impressive credentials into an impressive campaign? Well, first of all, he's only 37, so he has a potentially long political career in front of him. Also, this makes him young enough to be cool, especially to young conservative voters who feel disenfranchised from Obama's politics. Instead of comparing Jindal to Obama because they were both men of color, why not showcase Jindal's youth to younger conservative or Christian voters? The Democrats don't have the "cool" market cornered. Just ask Mike Huckabee:



Few things are cooler than joking around with Chuck Norris. "Principled authentic conservative"? Bobby Jindal fits into that mold! Celebrity endorsements, Daily Show or Colbert Report appearances, and early buzz are all things that could rocket Bobby Jindal to the White House.

But, how can The Atlantic get in on the ground floor? Interviewing Louisiana natives about Jindal would be a start. Researching his policies, his changes as governor, or even his family history would be a good segment. However, I think it's too early to jump aboard the Jindal train quite yet. Instead of focusing on a White House bid, focusing on "The New Head of the Republican Party" seems more prudent. People are tired of hearing about campaigning.

After a few months of an Obama presidency, however, Jindal and the other 2012 contenders are fair game.

WSJ: Obama's National-Security Team Set

Part of why I love the WSJ print edition are the fantastic stippled hedcuts. Sometimes, they say more than the article can. Take a look at the three George W. Bush portraits below:


In just a year and a half, Bush seems to have aged 10 years. (As an aside, Kevin Sprouls is the artist who pioneered this style in the WSJ and if you have any interest in art, I recommend browsing around his site.)

The Wall Street Journal online is one of the best designed websites for a major news outlet. The entire thing is packed full of interactive graphs and graphics, user-friendly tabs, and an extensive back catalog. However, I think that the stories lose a bit of their flair without the requisite portraits. Take this story for example. Obama National-Security Team Set is the same sort of article that you'd see in the print WSJ, but the actual photographs of people and events add something different to the story. I'm not sure if I like it as much as the stylized portraits above.

Twitter: John McCain and Barack Obama

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have Twitter pages, but the difference is in the numbers:

McCain:

5,605 Following

4,840 Followers

25 Updates

Obama:

143,629 Following

138,979 Followers

263 Updates

So, roughly 137,000 more people follow Barack Obama. Ok, that's understandable. Younger generation and all that. But, let's take a look at the content of their pages. Let's take a peek at some highlights from John McCain:

Girded Loins at NBC: Joe Biden's commented on Sunday that Barack Obama's election as President would, .. http://tinyurl.com/6nb2fk 10:30 AM Oct 21st from twitterfeed
Biden: 'Gird Your Loins' for International Crisis: Joe Biden tells it like it is: "Mark my words,.. http://tinyurl.com/6yfuej

Obama Surrogate Unable To Cite One Obama Bipartisan Accomplishment: http://tinyurl.com/3q7hck 6:00 PM Oct 15th from twitterfeed
STATEMENT ON ACORN'S LETTER: ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis rel.. http://tinyurl.com/4wxy97 9:00 AM Oct 14th from twitterfeed
Obama and ACORN: Just one week ago, the Obama campaign declared that 'Barack Obama never organized wit.. http://tinyurl.com/4xlm4z 3:30 PM Oct 11th from twitterfeed

Above are 5 Twitter posts out of 25, or 20% of McCain's content. Note that not one of the above posts are about John McCain. Instead, they're links to negative articles about Barack Obama. In other words, his posts are small snippets of headlines, not about how wonderful John McCain is, but about how frightening and bad for America his opponent is.

Perhaps this is because surrogate Twitter-McCain (because he can't use a computer) only posted from September 19th through October 24th. Not really enough time to become familiar with the medium, but enough time to say more positive things about John McCain himself, no?

Now, let's take a look at Obama's page. From the start, it's aesthetically more sedate, forgoing the bunting-esque American flags on the McCain page. Additionally, the content is related to Obama. Links to Obama speeches, articles about Obama policy, and even a reminder to vote. Instead of fear-mongering anti-McCain rhetoric, Obama's page is about Obama. Interesting. Perhaps this is the "Change we can believe in."

Twitter: Anyone else?

So, I don't actually have any friends whom I know personally on Twitter, and I'm not too adept at finding people from our class...

Does anyone else have a Twitter name? I'd really like to see how "following" works.

My Twitter name is Carolinemooney and I'd love a friend or two!

Twitter: Short and Punchy

As I explore Twitter, I'm reminded of how we talked about how candidates were utilizing the internet to build a youth base. The youth vote has been talked about for years, but this election seems to be a turning point. Obama reached out to younger voters and let them know that he's different and has the best interest of the younger generation in mind.

So, how does a candidate reach out to the young? Well, it helps to be dramatically younger than your opponent, but one has to appear to be "of" or at least "connected to" the younger generation. Take Obama's Facebook page, for example. As I type this, he has over 3.2 million supporters, or friends, in Facebook lingo. 3.2 million people who can log onto Facebook every day and "Get exclusive content and interact with Barack Obama right from Facebook," according to the Google summary.

But how did he do it and how did it help? He (or his team) did it by employing Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. And, it doesn't hurt that he (or his team) filled out the Detailed Info:

Detailed Info

Website:	http://www.facebook.com/pages/Students-f... http://www.myspace.com/barackobama http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michelle-O...
Gender:	Male
Relationship Status:	Married to Michelle Obama
Birthday:	August 4, 1961
Religious Views:	Christian
Interests:	Basketball, writing, spending time w/ kids
Favorite Music:	Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johann Sebastian Bach (cello suites), and The Fugees
Favorite Movies:	Casablanca, Godfather I & II, Lawrence of Arabia and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Favorite Books:	Song of Solomon (Toni Morrison), Moby Dick, Shakespeare's Tragedies, Parting the Waters, Gilead (Robinson), Self-Reliance (Emerson), The Bible, Lincoln's Collected Writings
Favorite TV Shows:	Sportscenter
Favorite Quotations:	"The Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." (MLK)

How much more short and punchy, yet personal can you get? His favorite books, his favorite movies. This page shows a man who is able to comfortably cultivate intimacy through a medium that the younger generation actually uses.

How many twenty-somethings read Newsweek or Time every week? How many twenty-somethings look at Facebook every day? I can guarantee that the numbers for the latter are exponentially higher.

The next Presidential candidate will have to be able to comfortably use media much as Facebook or Twitter to communicate with younger voters. As more young people get their news from online sources, the internet will become the newest battleground state, and, arguably, the most important.

Looking Forward: Possible 2012 nominees

Who will be the Republican nominee in 2012?

Well, odds are looking good for Mitt Romney according to Intrade. Interestingly, on the same page, Intrade has 3:1 odds for a Democratic winner in 2012. The Mitt Romney buzz is on the people's lips already, as well as the internet.

With a bit of searching, I came upon this bizarre pro-Mitt (?) website. I'm enchanted with entires such as this:

The topic:

How should Mitt keep himself occupied over the next three years?

For sake of argument, take as a given that winning the Presidency in 2012 is the goal.

A non-exhaustive list of possibilities to consider:

• Mend fences with the older gentleman who will likely win the nomination, in hopes of a VP nod, and a one-term Presidency.
• Take a cabinet position (e.g. Treasury, Commerce, etc.).
  
• Take over as Chairman of the RNC (as suggested by Newt on Fox News last night).
• Grow a beard, get fat, lecture at Harvard (aka "the Gore Plan")
  
• Play with the grandkids
  
• Do what he does best - fix broken companies and make a pile of money.

Though said tongue in cheek, some of those ideas aren't half bad. Plus, Romney was the Republican governor of oh-so-liberal Massachusetts for four years. That has to give him some cred with Democrats, or at least centrist Republicans.

Though the numbers are close, and the primaries are far away, Presidential hopefuls have been campaining earlier and earlier over the last few decades. Obama announced his candidacy about a year and a half before. Senator Clinton announced hers on January 20th, 2007, exactly two years before President Elect Obama will be sworn in. Ostensibly, it's not too abstract to discuss potential Presidential nominees, but one must remember two things:

1) A single day or a single scandal can change a politician's entire career. Trent Lott is a perfect example of this maxim in action.

2) The Republican party doesn't have a defined path...yet. Over the next few years, the party could turn entirely to the right and follow the Huckabee/Palin path (wouldn't that be quite the ticket?), or the party could do a 180 and become more socially centrist and fiscally conservative. At this point, the party appears to be up for grabs, but the prediction of Mitt Romney, though not overwhelming, is an interesting one. He won 11 states and caucuses, roughly 20%, which isn't too low of a number considering the Republicans had a cast of thousands for potential nominees.

This article from The Atlantic does a nice job of exploring some other potential candidates who may, someday, represent the Republican Party. Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty are two candidates whom I could easily see in the limelight with four more years of experience. But again, all of these predictions are, essentially, moot if the Republican Party drastically changes direction.

But, where does all of this talk leave our good friend Sarah Palin? Luckily, the buzz over her potential 2012 bid seems to have died down compared to the two weeks after the election when there was story, after story, after story about Gov. Palin potentially becoming President Palin. Though it's entirely too early to count her in or rule her out, I will leave the reader with this sign, lovingly hand-painted for an anti-Palin rally held in Alaska earlier this year.

Happy Thanksgiving!

President Bush pardons his last turkey.

Looking Forward: Retrospectives

The above image serves as a pictorial representation of Bush's final days in office, as he prepares to leave office with a higher disapproval rating than any recent President, including Nixon.

Even though President Bush is STILL the President for another 7 weeks or so there recently has been a proliferation of retrospectives. Or, colloquially, Americans are asking, "How the hell did we get into this mess?"

John Hallmann wrote an interesting piece for the Huffington Post that details several unfortunate key point of the Bush Administration.

Evidently, the Bush Administration is revising its own history, as it were. As the clock winds down, what can be said for the past? Quite a bit, but it depends on who's saying it, and for what purpose.

ETA: The first thing that pops up for the Google suggested searches when you type in "President" with a space at the end is "President Obama." America is looking forward.

Karma

Ann Coulter's jaw was wired shut.

Twitter: First reactions

So, Twitter.

I had heard of it, but never really put much thought into it. This morning, I decided to explore the Twitter webpage and found it rather...cryptic. The Welcome page has this to say:

Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

What am I doing? Well, currently I'm reading the Twitter page, but beyond that I have to wonder why anyone would care. My first reaction was that Twitter encapsulates the faux closeness that the internet provides, but then I got to thinking. What is the purpose of Twitter? 140 characters isn't long, so brief updates are the norm. Anything from, "I feel sick" to "I watched FoxNews for 6 hours and learned a lot about Obama's new economic team." Rather than closeness, Twitter acts as a platform for conversations that could be held outside of the Twitter forum. Much like a blog post lends itself to comments, Twitter starts conversations and allows people to glean information about someone else's life through conversational snippets.

The media cloud of blogs, comments on stories, and instant information gives a voice to those who may have felt disenfranchised by popular media. Twitter could possibly act as a conduit for those who like to stay instantly connected.

Conversely, Twitter reminded me of something that happened just the other day. My friend and I were Googling our names and the first thing that popped up for me was MY Facebook page. Caroline Mooney, Hartford CT. There I was. It made me feel like I was on the Truman Show, which, evidently, is a contemporary phenomenon fueled by Facebook newsfeeds and Google searches.

So, how will the media react to sites like Twitter if their popularity continues to grow, or even grows exponentially? What will the internet look like in 2012? Twitter, much like the Barack Obama text messages allows anyone you "follow" to immediately tell you whatever they think is important. If the Obama administration, MSNBC, FoxNews, or another person, governmental body, or media outlet got a Twitter page, much like the Obama Facebook page, it would allow them to enter your home and your daily life as seamlessly as a new friend does. The result is one we've talked about often in regards to blogs: short bits of information that feed into how the Google Generation looks for news. Maybe some would take the time to research the story, but imagine if FoxNews twittered (is that a verb?) headlines their followers:

"Obama's pastor gives vitriolic anti-American sermon."

"Obama's secret ties to Kenyan government."

"Obama uses cabinet appointments to further his liberal agenda."

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I don't want anyone to know what I'm doing all the time, nor do I want to know what anyone else is doing all the time, nor every headline that comes across as a news alert. News organizations could certainly utilize Twitter to their great advantage. It seems like an interesting tool. And now, after Obama and McCain's webpage face-off, the internet will probably become an important tool to potentially reach the ever-apathetic youth voter. Maybe sites like Twitter will win the next election for whomever is savvy enough to get in on the ground floor.

Barack Obama: Choosing Centrists for Cabinet

The Obama cabinet is shaping up to be more centrist than some on the right thought. There were fears that Obama would choose only exceedingly liberal politicians to help him govern, but those fears have been assuaged with he announcement of Obama's economic team. But, how can members of the conservative media tell the story without giving Obama credit for using the cabinet to balance out Republican and Democratic viewpoints? Ah! Claim that the left has "buyer's remorse" and that the far left is angered by these centrists because they "don't think exactly as we do!"

Now, contrast the above story to this one from the New York Times. Instead of complaining about "liberal feelings" with no evidence, the Times states the choices reasonably and in a way that engages the reader. The article lends itself to discussion, rather than a screaming match.

Just for a further comparison, I found this gem of an article from NewsBusters on the same bit of video and the same story. For kicks, read the comments at the bottom. This is my personal favorite:

Let's have a full accounting of coke-head Obama's life. Still don't know anything about him.

College records. Where are they? Why won't he release them and his thesis?

State Senate records. Where are they?

Medical records. Are you hiding some physical or mental defect? Doesn't the country have a right to know?

Passport. Why don't you want people to see where you have been? Wouldn't that go a long way to bolster you're Foreign Affairs experiance?

Application to Illionois Bar. Did you mention your drug use on it? Or are you trying to cover up that you did not fully disclose everything about you.

Riddled with spelling errors and bizarre assumptions, posts like this make me realize that the internet gives everyone, regardless of ANYTHING except access to a computer, the right to be heard by anonymous millions.

In response to this Nate Silver post and this Atlantic article:

It struck me that a greater proportion of conservative blogs have the same air of paranoia about Obama, his history, his religion, and even his (presumed) cabinet appointment. Very few of these issues are looked at objectively and often positions are given without supporting evidence. When was the last time you saw a conservative blog engage in lively, spirited debate with the other side? (Note: debate in this case means a reasoned argument supported by evidence, not talking over the opponent.)

Could it come from years of conservative talk radio, which is full of personalities like this?

His eyes, which off-air are usually flat and unhappy, are alight now with passionate conviction.[...] As is SOP in political talk radio, the emotions most readily accessed are anger, outrage, indignation, fear, despair, disgust, contempt, and a certain kind of apocalyptic glee, all of which the Nick Berg thing's got in spades. [who is in turn able] to enjoy the authority and influence of journalism without the stodgy constraints of fairness, objectivity, and responsibility that make trying to tell the truth such a drag for everyone involved.

However, as with every generalization, there are exceptions to the rule. Take, for example, this fantastic article by Byron York from the DC Examiner.
One of the most interesting byproducts of this phenomenon is that now seemingly everything is both fair gain and news. Michelle Maklin is a big proponent of this sort of news

Barack Obama: Rumors

Did Obama buy the vote? Uninformed Obama voters? You bet!



There are uninformed voters everywhere. Single issue voters, clever editing, whatever you want to call it, this little video makes me think of a Jay Walking segment.

"Yes you can...own a piece of history"

The Obama Commemorative plates are out! Say hello to your Christmas present, everybody!

Newsweek: "Is Obama the Antichrist?"

No, seriously. Lisa Miller from Newsweek interviewed people for whom this is an actual possibility.

This is one of the most puzzling articles I've ever seen from a publication as reputable as Newsweek. I understand that newspapers and magazines should stock their pages with all the news that's fit to print, but this just seems incendiary and a bit strange. For people religious enough to believe in a physical Antichrist, the article reaffirms their points, and for those who think that's a bit (or exceedingly) wacky, it comes off as entirely too serious. I would have like to read an article that outlined how Millennialist or Evangelical Christians feel about Obama's win. However, Miller didn't write with that sort of finesse. For example,

The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they're not nuts: "They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared," Staver says.

They're not nuts? Well, "nuts" is a little strong, but couldn't Miller have written that entire thought in the voice of Staver? Her article strikes me as rather tactless but I can't tell if my reading of the article is marred because of the horrible title.

Certianly, the Rapture has been big business lately. With the advent (get it?) and popularity of books that discuss Evangelical themes, such as the Left Behind series, more and more Americans are discussing Rapturous happenings unabashedly, and, more importantly unironically.

Evidently, the authors of the Left Behind series do not think that Obama is the Antichrist, so that's one point for sanity.

ETA: Whenever I hear about the Apocalypse, I always think of Durer.

The "lighter" side of racism

Check out this neat new Christmas Decoration from the right wing Christian group, the American Family Association:
Remind you of anything?

I think this fits in nicely with out discussion of those whom we lovingly labeled "scary, crazy people." It's one thing for racists to burn crosses under cover of darkness and sheet, but it's another to purchase a product that lets everyone who drives by your house know that you subscribe to this set of values. I'm not sure if an Obama Presidency will increase the number of racist attacks or tirades. But, sequestered in Connecticut, I don't think I'll be able to tell unless the MSM lets me know that something is awry.

A blogger got a screen capture of the entire listing here.

Is Bill Clinton a liability?

Barack Obama has been considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but how much of a liability is the Clinton Foundation? Former President Clinton has been "reluctant to disclose the donors," according to Philip Rucker of the Washington Post. Rucker goes on to say,


"It's a little bit unclear what happened there, but there are some reports that he's helped -- that Bill Clinton helped facilitate a deal there in uranium in Kazakhstan, and in turn, there was a donation to the foundation."

Clinton has offered to disclose future donors and "'major' past contributors -- a term that has yet to be defined."

The possible offer of a cabinet position for Hillary Clinton is certainly an interesting one, and one that I am having trouble with for two reasons, in addition to Bill's charity posing a conflict of interest.

1) Hillary Clinton has a big personality is very ambitious. There's no way that Clinton would like being subordinate to Obama and, if anything were to go wrong in the Obama administration, she would be jumping off the ship as fast as possible to preserve a future bid for the White House. I think that it would behoove Senator Clinton to stay in the Senate and push for Universal Healthcare and Pre-K, and other programs she was touting during the primaries. Rushing off from her Senate seat might seem disingenuous and give creedance to those carpetbagging allegations launched against her a few years back. She has plenty of time to season and mature as a politician, and, with more experience, could be an excellent President. She's in a position to run for President in 8 years with more experience than many other female candidates (ex: Sarah Palin) and the blessing of name recognition.

2) Bill Clinton hasn't seemed as calm, cool, and collected as usual for the last few years and, both during and after the campaign, he was rather unfair to Obama. The Clinton's played dirty pool during the campaign. They (presumably they were behind those "anonymous" leaks) lobbed every single allegation that they could against President Elect Obama, but Hillary still lost, perhaps due to disorganization within her own campaign. Plus, if Senator Clinton did take the Cabinet position, Bill Clinton's personal relationships with world leaders, if not his charity, could pose a conflict of interest. There's no way to know what Bill Clinton has said to some of the most powerful people in the world, whom he counts as friends. Barack Obama's presidency is not the Clinton Administration Part III. Obama will have his own agenda and this could cause points of contention between Bill's dealings and the official stance from the administration.

Hillary and Bill Clinton still seem surprised by Hillary's loss to Obama, and, not only are they not over it, I would bet that they're planning a run in 2016, if not sooner.

Merging of Internet and Cable News

As I type, Wolf Blitzer has a feature entitled Senator Clinton as Secretary of State and Where Sarah Palin Goes From Here. These are interesting issues, but the most interesting part is who he has on the program. Both Hilary Rosen from the Huffington Post and Terry Jeffery from cnsnews.com are on and talking about the future of both parties and what spaces, if any, are open for women. Wolf Blitzer shows his (and cable news') relevance with these two representatives from widely-known internet news outlets.

As the Era of Obama dawns, will there be continued collaboration between internet, print, and television news sources? There's no way to tell for sure, but it'll be interesting to look out for.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post stemmed from an article that came from Harry's Blog.

This is a fascinating snippet from the article:

CBS's underlying problem -- and the commonality between the three items that I described above -- is the arbitrary and largely ineffectual nature of the fact-checking process employed by the mainstream media. I have written for perhaps a dozen major publications over the span of my career, and the one with the most thorough fact-checking process is by some margin Sports Illustrated. Although this is an indication of the respect with which SI accords its brand, it does not speak so well of the mainstream political media that you are more likely to see an unverified claim repeated on the evening news than you are to see in the pages of your favorite sports periodical.

Sports Illustrated deals with concrete versions of the facts. Sports are numbers. How many points did Michael Jordan score in 1993? Well, there's a number out there somewhere. One number. It's not a contested story. And, if Sports Illustrated got this number wrong, a sports statistician would know. He could point to all of the examples of Michael Jordan scoring a point, and thus SI would probably print a retraction and everyone would move on.

However, when we move on to the more nebulous realm of the MSM, when it comes down to "facts," what are we discussing? Versions of the truth? Whose version? I think these questions are at the heart of all the other questions we've discussed this year, from bias to comedy to race.

Take this picture of Kim Jong Il, for example.


It looks like he's really there at first glance doesn't it? He couldn't be dead. Surely not. There's photographic evidence that he is standing of his own power with his troops. But is he really?

Perhaps in a lot of ways, the MSM is, in some ways, duping the public, like Kim Jong Il's regime. Not to that extent, mind you, I'm not calling the MSM a fascist regime, but most people in America trust the MSM and don't believe that a) the media would lie, or b) the media could lie.

The media won't lie outright; the public would find out, I imagine. But, consequently, how do biases, the need for ratings, and liberal or conservative apeasement change the credibility of stories? Do people question what they hear or just repeat it without judgement or their own filter?

Look closer at the above photograph.


Discrepancies abound, but how many people who are under Kim Jong Il's (possibly dead) thumb would even know that such as thing as Photoshop exists? Editing pictures? Editing the photographic evidence - editing the facts. It sounds like science fiction. No one would inspect a photograph this closely if they didn't know that editing photographs was possible.

Take this picture and the 538 story as an example of a larger phenomenon. Sometimes the media isn't lying, they're stretching the truth, maybe, but they do it for a purpose. Don't forget that sometimes, what CNN, MSNBC, or FoxNews wants is ratings. They're not non-profits. Your attention equals money in their pockets, and sometimes that attention has to be manufactured.

And so the division and persecution meme continues...

As much as Democrats see an Obama presidency as the beginning of something new and exciting, many Republicans are nervous. Perhaps this fear is being increased by FoxNews (the video is a bit campy, but it makes a good point):




Look at the dates on the video. Attacks on Obama from the right and the left started in early 2007, when several Democrats had announced their intent to run for President. Why wasn't FoxNews attacking John Edwards or even Chris Dodd? Could it be, perhaps, that Barack Obama was (and is) a frightening figure because he's African American? The only other Democrat who got a fraction of this treatment was Hillary Clinton, who had the double whammy of being female and a member of the Clinton Democratic dynasty.

From these incendiary beginnings, the election proved that not all Americans can be brainwashed by scare tactics. However, now that Obama is American's new President-Elect, both sides are crying persecution. Take these examples into consideration:

1) A middle schooler who wore a teeshirt to school that said "McCain Girl" chronicled her peers reactions. From the article,

People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

Kudos to Catherine for being inquisitive, but there are several things wrong with this story and the way that the article was written. First of all, middle school has never been known as a paragon of tolerance. Most people try to get out of middle school with the least amount of mental anguish possible, and oftentimes that includes making fun of the kids who are different so the crowd doesn't turn on you. For the reporter to write this article as if these 12-14 year olds who are both full of hormones and unable to vote is irresponsible and incendiary. Oak Park is a very liberal suburb of Chicago, Obama's hometown. Most (or all) of the children who made fun of Catherine got their political ideas (probably just Obama good, McCain bad) from their parents anyway. Add to that the hometown pride phenomenon and you're solidly in Obama territory.

With that said, I don't know if I can point to any person I know who didn't get made fun of in middle school, whether for clothing choices, hairstyles, or even just physical appearance. To make a case for "liberal intolerance" with a group of middle schoolers as the sample is just bizarre and sloppy journalism.


2) An Ausberg College student who was, allegedly, beaten up by four, larger black women who called her a racist for supporting McCain/Palin. From the article,

The team trainer, who checked her out the next day, said she probably had a concussion and barred her from practice for two days. She said she's also been required by the school to attend counseling and missed a day of classes. [...]

Augsburg spokesman Jeff Shelman said the school doubts that the women are students, citing a review of dorm building video surveillance that evening and the fact that the victim didn't recognize any of them.

So after this vicious attack, the alleged victim does not get checked out by a doctor, nor call the police. Instead she waits until the next day to get checked out by her hockey team's trainer. Not only that, but no such women (or attack) are seen by the other students present or the school's surveillance cameras. Is it possible that this girl could have gotten injured another way and made up a story overnight to show the depths of liberal intolerance? It's been done before.

3) A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest who is withholding communion "because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him 'constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.'"

Shouldn't the separation between church and state go both ways? What about helping the poor and other corporal works of mercy? Why should the church only care about abortion, which is legal anyway and doesn't appear to be going anywhere? And, if the sanctity of life is what's crucial, how could such an organization support Republican candidates who are in favor of the death penalty?

When did religion get tied to the right so intimately and doesn't it weaken the church's tax-exempt status if the priest is using his pulpit for politics?

The article also addresses the Democratic Catholics who have been disenfranchised by statements like this:

"Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."


If nothing else, Obama and McCain supporters can agree on the fact that this is one of the most divisive elections in recent memory. Both sides have been unfairly treated by a select few and the media is covering it, not just for the story, but, perhaps, also to show how unfairly their side is being treated. There's a difference between reporting stories in a factual and unpolitical way that doesn't push the two sides further apart.

How do moderates feel because of all this? When the entire American political system has been deeply cleaved into "RIGHT" and "LEFT" how are people supposed to make up their own minds instead of buying into reports of intolerance, from either end?

Hillary Christmas

I've noticed that this Hillary Clinton ad from last year has been contrasted with the Obama ad below lately.



Notice how Hillary is all alone in her ad, wrapping presents with Bill nowhere in sight. She's her own woman and a generous one, you see. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is sitting with his family, looking cozy and warm without an overly strong political message.

There was a snippet about these two ads just the other day on CNN. The anchors discussed how the two ads followed the campaign patterns closely, right down to Obama being more about image than substance. It's an interesting microcosm of the politics we've seen over the last year or so.

As one can see from this 2007 CNN video, I guess it's something to look forward too with Obama as our President Elect.



P.S. Don't forget that it's up to Mike Huckabee to remind voters (and the religious right) about the true meaning of Christmas!

McCain: What went wrong?

Now that the campaign is over and a winner has been declared all of that off-the-record good stuff can come out. But, McCain/Palin won't go down without a fight. We've seen Sarah's bizarre airport interview, GOP lawyers flying to Alaska to retrieve Palin's clothes (at a cost that is surely higher than the clothes are worth), and even numerous interviews with McCain and Palin expressly asking, "What went wrong?" as if the two of them would be able to cite exactly what it was, or even tell the truth if they could.

Interestingly, this article from the Daily Kos breaks down exactly what happened in the campaign (and what was eventually, in my opinion, McCain's downfall) months before the events occurred. Unless the writer was blessed with the gift of prophecy, it was clear to many political commentators that, because of McCain's choice of political and campaign advisers, he would run a dirty campaign, much like the one Bush ran against him in 2000. Politics is crawling with sore losers. It's rumored that Bush II ran because Bush I didn't get his second term. Hillary Clinton has been keeping her 2012 (or 2016) hopes very much alive, and Sarah Palin has been doing the same. John McCain tried to run on that "sore loser, just attack until there's no one looking at your politics" platform, and thankfully, it didn't work. This time.

The new head of the Republican Party

There's been a lot of talk lately about the "New Head" of the Republican party. But, when was the last time that the Republicans had a notable, respected leader?

Remember the primary race? John McCain was a face in a sea of thousands for those many months. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee: An adulter, a mormon, a Southern Baptist minister. Though this sounds like the beginning to a very bad joke, these short descriptors highlight the fact that these are three very different men who would have taken the party in three very different directions. The people chose John McCain, but not by a comfortable margin.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Repubican party doesn't know where it's going. John McCain used to be seen as a moderate and progressive senator. However, he wasn't conservative enough for the new base of religious zealots, and, with his flip flopping on the issues and his choice of Palin, he wasn't moderate enough for the moderates. For now, I think it's impossible for the entire Republican party to find a leader who is able to dance between religious nuttery and reasoned social and fiscal conservatism. If there's no middle ground, how can there be a consensus? How can a party rally around a leader if they don't know which side they're truly on?

I hate to come back to old Ronnie, but he's the last important, formative Republican head of the party that I can remember. He won two elections, the first of which was against an incumbent. At the time, there wasn't the same Republican pandering to the extremely religious right. Are the Republicans going to have to cut ties with this "base" and move on?

As I've said before, there's a deep rift between the two major factions of Republicanism. Sarah Palin on one side and Olympia Snow on the other. Before Republicans can find a "head" they need an identity.

When was the last time you saw a President looking so...Presidential?

I conceptually understand the Republican argument about Barack Obama's "Cult of Personality," but honestly, isn't that what a President is? Think of the archetypal president: calm, cool, patriotic, level-headed, charismatic, witty, engaging, and stylish. Do Americans want a true maverick? Do Americans want a cowboy? Maybe some do, but bucking the Presidential image hasn't been successful. Take a look at this picture and tell me that you wouldn't be proud to have this man step off the tarmac and represent you, an American.


There's a certain swagger or "coolness" as well as an unmatched intellectual prowess and fairness that Americans demand from public figures, whether they realize it or not. The archetypal American President is a combination of George Washington and James Bond. Bush didn't have that personality. His appeal was maintained by only a small subset of America.

But why? When Bush was elected, Americans were quoted saying that they could see themselves having a beer with him. A beer? How about a serious political discussion? Not so much. He appealed to the common man, but in a time of crisis do you want the common man leading the country? According to approval rating polls, evidently not. Perhaps, President Bush's personality said one thing to America in 2000 (cowboy), and another thing after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (incompetent boob).

Beyond personality, did you ever see President Bush or Dick Cheney (or anyone from the administration) looking this comfortable and naturally happy in a public setting?



Think of Ronald Regan. Many Republicans cite him as one of the best and most charismatic Presidents. Look at his background: Regan was an actor and a fantastic orator. His policies weren't the best that the world had seen, but in many ways he gave off the aura of a President with his innate abilities - his personality was presidential.

One last point: take a look at this chart of the physical characteristics of Presidents (and presidential candidates) from the New York Times. Could they have made the John McCain silhouette look punier and less presidential?

As icing on the cake, Obama even manages to look more like a movie-star cowboy than George Bush.

Confederates for Obama

In response to this article, I present this puzzling photograph that was sent to me a few months ago:

Note the Confederate Battle Flag and the Obama sign. Racism in the America (and especially the South) is a complicated issue, as is the display of the Stars and Bars. To some, the Confederate Flag shows that blatant racism is alive and well in America. To others, it represents a heritage or acts as a symbol of fallen family members and a shared past.

American history is a complicated and messy thing. Now, on the heels of the Obama election, what will happen? I'm not wondering if Obama can unite our vast and diverse country, but if such a thing is even possible.

Or, have people been letting the vocal minority shout over the reasoned majority? Perhaps, to most who feel an affinity towards the Confederate flag, it acts as a symbol of heritage, not the symbol of our corrupted past. Can those who proudly wave the Confederate flag also be Obama supporters? Evidently, yes. And that makes me a little more proud of my country.

Fantastic video

Right Wing anger: At President Bush's treatment in the media

Along side the anti-Obama crowd, there are right wingers in the media who claim that Bush's presidency was "unlucky," that he was "unfairly treated by the left," and that all of "the disasters he faced were not his fault."

Jeffery Scott Shapiro, an Op-Ed columnist for the WSJ, has this to say:

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

I'm not one to throw around the word "apologist," but in all honesty, even a reasoned, well-written piece about how Bush has been unfairly treated just makes Bush's time in office sound like a failure. There are compromises in which both parties feel represented and compromises in which both parties feel like losers. President Bush's time in office has been marred with countless instances of the latter. Trying to help both sides and failing miserably doesn't speak of an "unlucky" term. After 9/11, his approval ratings were hovering around 90%. America looked up to their President and expected great things from him. But what about Hurricane Katrina, the war(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rapidly growing National Debt, the current financial crisis, unconstitutional wire tapping? The test of a President is how well he can handle himself and make decisions during a crisis. Bush didn't fail in these situations because of the left wing media; he failed because he didn't know what to do and had people around him who couldn't help.

Right Wing anger: At Obama

Though I'm sure the FoxNews studio is decked in funerary crepe (at least for now), I bet that an Obama presidency is like four years of Christmas for ultra-conservatives. Now, instead of the liberal media "blaming Bush" and having to play defense, Republican talking heads can lead the offensive.

Take Rush Limbaugh (as quoted in the LA Times) for example:

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen...Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Barack Obama has been the President Elect for about five days now. Somehow, I think it's a bit premature to declare an "Obama recession," but facts haven't stopped Limbaugh in some time.


As an aside:

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but it's possible that an Obama presidency could be so divisive that it will fracture the Republican party into the "pure" Rush Limbaugh social conservatives and the more moderate Andrew Sullivan fiscal conservatives.

I'm not sure why the right has been pandering to the views of ultra-conservatives like Malkin and Coulter (e.g. Sarah Palin). None of those people would ever vote for a Democrat; these are people who would vote Republican even if Satan was the nominee.

Republicanism didn't used to be about hating those outside of "real America" or accusing the other candidate of being a "terrorist" or an "Arab." In my eyes, the facade of the new Republicanism crumbled when McCain choose an inexperienced, arguably unintelligent, and (pending investigation) corrupt Vice Presidential candidate just because she is a beautiful and ultra-conservative woman.

McCain isn't right enough for you? Just take a look at Palin, who checks every box on the right! Twice, doggoneit!

Looking back, all Palin did was scare away moderates. Why did McCain need to "energize the base" anyway? There couldn't have been enough Huckabee write-ins to combat the moderate votes McCain would have gained by having a more sane and representative-of-America running mate than Palin.

McCain (and conservatives in general) shouldn't have to pander to fringe voters if it goes against their own ideology. It's not fair to the candidates and it's not fair for America.

Sarah Palin: What now?

Well Sarah? Where to? Alaska I hope - at least, for now. (One thing I learned from that article: Alaskans call the rest of the US "The Outside." That's a bit spooky.)

Sarah Palin, there are just so many loose ends to tie up!


First, there's the clothing scandal. In other words, what happened to all those fancy duds? What's being donated? What will be kept as gifts (and is thus taxable)? If the campaign never intended to keep the clothes anyway, there must be a plan more substantial than "donate them to charity," because, honestly, that seems a little flimsy to me.

Second, with McCain's loss, the Republican Party seems rather disjointed. Who will step up and become the face of Republicanism?

Third, if this person is Palin, how will she dodge all the rumors that she doesn't know whether Africa is a country or a continent? Or, if those rumors are true, how will Republicans handle it?


Kaylene Johnson, author of Palin's biography Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Politics Upside Down, wrote a fascinating piece for CNN about how Alaskans feel about this whole to-do.

Interestingly, this article made me feel a bit bad for Palin. Most of the country had no interaction with the woman before the convention, so did the campaign find it necessary to change how Alaskans viewed her as a Governor? Gone was the woman of cooperation over confrontation, as her bipartisan politics were thrown by the wayside. Is the image of potential VP Palin that America was presented with at all similar to the image of Governor Palin that Alaskans were presented with? Seemingly, no. Perhaps, the "image" constructed around Palin was just another failed part of the McCain campaign - evidence of mismanagement and misjudgment.

I expect that in the coming months (or years) the real story of Palin will emerge. Will she come out to say that the McCain campaign tried to change her politics or how people perceive her? It's something to watch, certainly.

Ralph Nader is senile.

So, Ralph Nader wonders, aloud, if Obama will be an "Uncle Sam or an Uncle Tom" and Shepherd Smith calls him on it. My God. When FoxNews calls you on your racism, then you know that there's a problem. Perhaps that's a career ending phrase right there, but I'm just not sure if Nader "gets" it. At the end of his time, he seems to be about to defend the historical significance of the phrase. Well...you know, I don't think that that helps.

At least Ralph Nader addresses the issue of the poor...

"[Ralph Nader,] You have been reduced to complete irrelevance." - Wow.

Yes we did.

In case you missed Obama's acceptance speech, here it is. I can't think of a more Presidential and tear-inducing speech since I've been cognizant of politics.

As for election night coverage, I didn't get to see any of it until Obama's acceptance speech. On Election Day, I was working at Starbucks, dolling out free coffees to eager voters. Though I didn't get to see what the political talking heads had to say, I did get to hear all about the exit polls, what states had already been called, and voters' experiences first hand. Usually, people are friendly, but on Tuesday it was the most polarized crowd I have ever dealt with. McCain supporters were looking gloomy but were willing to stop and tell me about how an Obama presidency would be the "end of the Western world," or "one step closer to socialism." Politely nodding, I kept my mouth shut. Many Obama supporters were equally nervous said a McCain presidency would be "more of the same old shit," or "proof of racism in America."

When CNN called the election, I was still at Starbucks cleaning up after the busiest day I had ever worked. I got a call from my boyfriend who knew I was at work, and knew that I was nervous about the results. I got verklempt all by myself (two other people were working: a McCain supporter and someone who's completely apathetic) and felt proud.

Truly, this election is a seminal moment in our nation's history. I've never seen more people of all stripes interested in politics.

But, now what? Obama will have to face one of the most scrutinized presidencies in history. In many people's eyes, he's a savior. Can he live up to these high expectations or will the media pounce on every misspoken word, policy decision, and speech?

People are inspired. Politics have never been this lively in my lifetime, but will this elation/depression stay? What happens next?

Twenty Twenty Twenty-four hours to go! I want to be sedated.

Get out there and vote!

Sarah Palin and (the fake) Sarkozy

Recently, Sarah Palin was pranked by two comedians from Montreal posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Evidently, it took them five days to get through, but they managed and Palin seemed just as flustered and flirty as if she met the French Preisdent without preparation. (Just as an aside, I'm sure that the aides who allowed the call to go through [without a french translator or possibly anyone else on the phone!] have been fired.)

The audio for this debacle is here and the transcript is here. If you get the chance, read the comments on the transcript. There are some very intelligent people saying exactly what they think is wrong with Palin's "performance."

I read the article before I listened to the chat. I assumed that the pranksters must sound pretty official to get through to Palin, and they must have talked politics for at least a few minutes to get her guard down.

Nope.

Everything from Sarkozy's Pepe le Pew accent, to "'ustlers Nailin Palin," to killing baby seals from helicopters should have sent up red flags to someone, if not Palin, someone else on the phone. Part of my concern is that her handlers let her fly solo, on a crackly phone, with the French President, who truly doesn't have the most stellar grasp on the English language. Any French translator worth his salt could have told Palin to get off the phone after Sarkozy said "rouge à lèvres sur un cochon" (lipstick on a pig.)

Her handlers having too much faith in her aside, she was giggly, flirty, and just seemed inappropriate. Talking about the French President's wife? Not mentioning John McCain except in passing? Not knowing the Prime Minister of Canada? Foreign relations bedamned! This is Maverick Territory!

John McCain and the polls

Oh John McCain, I was genuinely worried when I saw the announcement that Sarah Palin would be your running mate. At the time, the choice of Palin seemed like the proverbial shot in the arm that the campaign needed. Thankfully, after a few weeks (and a few unscripted Palin interviews), the fire died down and ever since McCain hasn't been ahead in most polls.

However, last week Fox News released a poll that showed Obama at 47 and McCain at 44. Certainly, 3 points is a small lead that can be eaten up by the margin of error alone. McCain's campaign was excited about the news and shopped the information to media outlets, most of whom didn't bite.

The Huffington Post does a nice job of explaining why this poll in particular is flawed. Most people are familiar with the right of center bias of Fox News, but most people aren't familiar with the way polls get their numbers. For example, many polls don't account for political affiliation when polling. For example, if 100 people were polled, 90 them Republican, 5 Democrat, and 5 Independent, the poll may or may not try to "center" their numbers, or account for the unusually high number of Republican responders. Polling isn't an exact science, but the Fox News poll seems rather disingenuous.

Obama and the polls

As I lustily watch the polls, the Huffington Post knows just how to dampen my fire.

In 2000 and 2004, many widely distributed and quoted polls showed different numbers than the ones on election night. Now, the race is hotly contested in many key states and there are more issues at play than the numbers could possibly account for.

I don't want to say that it's too late for an incident to knock Obama off the top, but as we draw nearer to the election, it would have to be a doozy to have a great impact on the numbers (knock on wood). Few things other than concrete evidence of some sort of anti-American conspiracy, illegitimate child(ren), or murder charges could shake up the campaign at this late stage.

In other words, I'm not worried about something happening in the here and now. I'm more worried about race and the Bradley effect and how (and if) that changed poll numbers. Race is a complicated issue - this is the first election on the national stage where it's been in the forefront. Are there enough Americans trying to seem PC to swing poll numbers? At this point, anything is possible, I guess. However, pictures like this one make me think.

Presumably, we'll have to wait for after the election to see if race played as big a role as it seems like it could, but I'll be sleeping more soundly on November 5th.

Synchronized debating

Think you've heard it before? You probably have! "You really have to pay attention to words." - John McCain

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

This is a fascinating video for several reasons. Certainly, John McCain and Barack Obama have reiterated their talking points time and time again, but this video shows just how carefully the language of said points was crafted and learned. As much as we make fun of Sarah Palin for being front-loaded information, there's no denying that sometimes, that's what happens in politics.

A politician is a carefully groomed and crafted persona. We've talked often about codes: John McCain is the Seasoned War Hero, Barack Obama is the Young, Bright Upstart. The way that these two men talk (and express their political views) fits into these crafted niches.

We've talked about the inherent mistrust in American politics. Of course, people don't want to feel like they're being lied to or fooled by someone, but most voters want that crafted, calm persona. When Howard Dead screamed from the depths of his gut, voters (and the media) were scared, or at least surprised. This scream, this man - is that what a voter would remember in times of crisis? Did Americans want Dean's "finger on the button" as it were? The answer is clearly no. Americans want the politician whom they view as safe, level-headed, and consistent. Where does this aura of security and power come from? Does it stem from natural charisma groomed by handlers who know what Americans want to hear and see? What codes Americans want to "read"?

Repetition increases memorization. The more times a voter hears something, the more likely they are to remember it. Is that why politicians say the same things in almost the same way, time and time again? Or is it a function of the opposite process: politicians remember the way policies were repeated to them before speeches, and thus the words come out the same way each time.

The Onion and media bias

At least The Onion is an equal opportunity comedy outlet:


Cindy McCain Claims She's Just Like Any Other Female Human


Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship To Ease Concerns About His Lack Of Experience

Cindy McCain is a robot, John McCain is old, Barack Obama is inexperienced but eager. We've all seen these codes before.

Media Bias

So, almost two months down the road, does this article still hold true?

Since the beginning of the semester, the topic of media bias has come up often, whether we're talking about Obama/McCain, Biden/Palin, Clinton/Palin...the comparisons could go on and on. Who is the media really looking out for? To whom are they favorable? Of whom are they suspicious?

In some ways the aforementioned article speaks of an out of touch liberal media that is suspicious of any journalist who leans to the right. Conversely, the same article could be taken at face value and thus reveal a conservative bias in the press.

Just last night I had a discussion with a friend about the controversial unairbrushed photo of Palin on the cover of Newsweek a few weeks back. He asked me if Newsweek had a notable liberal bias, and if Palin knew when she was being photographed that her pictures would remain as is and be used "against her" to quote him. I mused that Newsweek was probably trying to sell magazines and create an eyeopening, interesting cover, and that the article critical of Palin was followed by a pro-Palin article by Republican spin-master Karl Rove.

But, honestly, I'm not sure. How much of what the media says is based on bias? And what sort of bias? Liberal bias? Conservative? Bias towards whichever version of the story is the truth? Which version will sell more magazines? Alignment with the writer's gender, race, social background?

Bias can be based on motives other than political. The trick is looking out for it. I guess that this view circles back to our discussion of social codes. Often, the public is naturally suspicious of people in the media, ex David Letterman, Karl Rove, Lou Dobbs. We expect people to have biases, which is a bias in and of itself.