A Change of Direction, Perhaps for the Better

It is time for change.

I'm going to do an overhaul of what I post on the blog. I haven't posted that many times, but lately I'm having a hard time coming up with original ideas. So from now on, I will still post the occasional commentary or some original reporting. However, I will mostly be focusing on posting new stories that I've written for various publications and my experiences with each story. I feel that this template will better suit what I want to do with this blog.

Yours,

Dan

Boostraps to Success

My latest article for the News explores a new after school program targeting at risk students.

How callow have we become?

I'm at a point, and many of you have heard me say this before, where I'm not even sure if national politics represent anything tangible. I won't reveal who I would vote for, but I'm on the verge of just not voting. When the system fails so often, and politicians in power don't do anything about, words like "change" and "hope" are fairly meaningless.

Take for instance, the federal and state prison systems. With an incarceration rate that gives the US 25 percent of the total inmates in the world (714 per 100,000 residents), its obvious that something is very wrong. Drug laws and policing unfairly target minorities, creating large groups of broken families in impoverished areas. (I'm not saying that all minorities live in poor neighborhoods, but a large portion of sale and possession charges come from these areas.) This in turn raises the possibility of the next generation turning to crime, and creates a vicious cycle.

Furthermore, when convicts are released into society, most do not hold high school degrees, which makes finding a job difficult. And, with the exception of a few industries, employers simply will not hire ex-cons. So what are these people supposed to do? Well one really good option would be to return to a life of crime. Its profitable enough.

So, with 7 in every 1000 Americans in prison this moment, shouldn't politicians be extremely worried about this demographic? Are we hearing anything about this?

On a side note, the fact that the National Democratic Party stripped Michigan of its delegates because it held a too-early primary should serve as proof to anyone that our primary system is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't states' candidates all be chosen on the same day?

Helpful Tool for Interviews

I have, at last count, 4 reporter's notebooks, all with varying degrees of fullness, and all rotating use in my interviews. I love their form, how they fit in the back pocket of my pants, how easy it is to flip pages.

But sometimes, when you're interviewing a person who talks a lot, very quickly, or just in long sentences, its hard to get everything they say down. I can do it, and I have, but it can get downright tiring. Furthermore, if I don't write the story within the next day or so, some of the details of the interview will fade from my mind.

So when I had a chance to choose my winter holiday gift from my grandmother, I knew there was only one thing I wanted: a digital voice recorder.

The model I decided on, the Olympus WS-110, records 69 hours of high quality, digital sound, and all I have to do to put it on my computer is pull the recorder apart and plug it into my USB port.

I've done about five interviews so far, and every one of the recordings has been clear, without any skipping.

I just keep it in my backpack or pocket, and when it comes time to do an interview, I just ask politely, "Just so I make sure not to misquote you, do you mind if I record this interview?"

And, of course, phrased in those terms, most people will happily say yes.

Win-Win, right?

One post note: The audio is of a high enough quality to be used in audio slideshows for the internet, so perhaps this Funky Hatted reporter will post one, one of these days.

Facebook Has a New Face

As 2007 wound down, and the political frenzy leading up to the Presidential primaries ramped up, Facebook, the social networking site, entered into a marketing deal with ABC News.


In the past few weeks, my Facebook news feed (a slightly Big Brother-ish list of recent changes to friends' profiles) has featured items like, "6 of your friends participated in the debate, _________." One of the debates was the role faith should play in a President's governing; others looked at gender issues.

Another recent debate, with an teaser in the sidebar of my Facebook homepage, discussed the war in Iraq.
Has Facebook come to represent more than shallow social interactions that remove most of the social? Could this ubiquitous website be the future, or a t least the foundations for the future, of political organizing? I think so.

See, every politician running for president, senator, house rep , city council, alderman, whatever, is trying to figure out how to improve their political organizing. The two parties are at a crossroads: their bases are splintering (Democrats are split on many issues; Republicans are in-fighting, as each group attempts to become the group of the party), and the voting base is aging. Staunch, pro-union Democrats (mainstays of the industrial and farming Midwestern states) are great, but I think the Democratic party is coming to terms with the fact that they aren't really the party of unions any more - when was the last time you heard about a new labor law in this Blue congress?

No, the group Democrats want is the new, liberal base that is currently between 18 and 30 right now. I mean, if my generation is recruited into this party, we will be voting for at least 20 more national election cycles. So it makes sense to target one of the biggest phenomena in this demographic.

For instance, the new debates program provides an opportunity to make issues relevant; I guarantee that the person who argues a point more strongly believes in it. It's a great way to get rid of ambivalence.

But there's more. Facebook is an amazingly visually appealing site. Even ads look integrated into the page. And the prior mentioned News Feed now offers "news feed stories" that are actually sponsored links. Such as this one:

Facebook is expanding its advertising and marketing models. As they expand, and offer more opportunities for embedded commercial content, it would be behoove the political parties to take advantage of this. I feel the beginnings of a surge of action in my generation, and when it explodes, the parties better be there.

Declining Expectations

Slate, what have you done?!

Slate Magazine, which was founded by Michael Kinsley, with funding from Microsoft, was, in my mind, a far superior publication than its most obvious competitor, Salon.

Yes, was. As in, in the past

Now, this may be a contentious point, so I will start with this: I respect and still read many of the writers in the magazine, which often publishes very insightful essays, political and otherwise. And, I have no qualms with the journalistic style, which very often involves first person narratives. In fact, I'm often struck by how much more that style resonates with me (and I would assume, the average reader) than the staid, straight journalistic style that can kill even the most emotive stories.

And for a very long time, in fact for as long as I have read Slate (I believe I first read a Jack Shafer article in early 2002), I have respected the fact that, despite its corporate beginnings, this newsmagazine became the populist, free online newsmagazine, while Salon, originally founded in this role, moved to a paid subscription.

Slate is not yet at this point. And, this summer, I began to notice that some of the new multimedia features - videos and audio embedded in articles which reference them, superb slide shows - were really good. For instance, instead of using a proprietary multimedia platform, the tech editor opted for a far more universal, standard: Flash. As the user of a computer not directly part of the Microsoft network, I appreciate the quick load times and in-browser support.

But, I've discovered increasingly intrusive advertisements. It's not that I have an issue with journalistic endeavors that make money. It's more when the business model a) casts doubt on the journalistic integrity of the publication, and b) actually interferes with the journalistic endeavors show cased in the publication, that I take issue.

For instance, the videos which I earlier praised now feature a commercial before they begin. If the videos truly are taking advantage of the spontaneity of the Internet to improve how news is delivered, I would think they wouldn't want to front load  these "extras" with off-putting advertisements.

The front page has also received some new advertisements. Looking at this front page, of the immediately visible section, approximately 1/3 is advertisement. Online journalism is very different from print journalism, in many ways, but readers are not. When even the simple act of reading the day's top headlines is interrupted by advertisements, its hard to imagine a reader who wouldn't at least give some thought to finding another news source.

But what really set me off was last week's - and I apologize for not yet having a picture - Applefest. Right below the navigation bar, in the spot which the publication normally reserves for a photo illustration, and embedded text links to their most important and/or interesting stories, was a nice, old fashioned banner ad with an Apple logo. And along the righthand side was a large video ad, with sound turned on, featuring the two characters Mac and PC. So the first thing you see when scanning the page is an Apple, and the last thing you see while changing lines of text is two very recognizable characters. 

So when Slate publishes flowery articles like this one, its hard to believe there was no influence. Reading this "article," however, I am convinced of the influence.

And with no discussion of the relationship between the two companies (Apple and Slate), how are we to know when the advertising budget becomes more important than journalistic integrity. Or, even, if it already has.

The Liberal Media "Shibboleth"

So the following is an essay that I wrote for Dan Kennedy's class. It's on media bias, and ended up being a bit longer than the assignment asked for, but I feel its strong enough to stand on its own. Keep in mind that some of the sources are class specific.

The Liberal Media "Shibboleth" (title added for the purposes of this blog)

“Liberals have overrun our media with subversive imagery and communistic beliefs. These America haters will stop at nothing to ruin good, honest Americans just trying to stay informed. With the exception of Rupert Murdoch, our savior, no media outlet truly represents the interests of the government, which, clearly, the media should.” This is a fairly extreme paraphrase, but in essence, this is what believers in liberal media bias opine. However, while I will admit that most journalists seem to be leftist in their politics, I don’t believe that “the media” as a whole are biased in any one direction. Media bias appears to me, to be an easy label to assign when a public figure, organization or political entity feels “the media” has unfairly targeted them.

Those who go into journalism, those who are attracted to the field, tend towards more progressive and liberal views. The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group with the tagline, “The Leader In Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias,” conducted a survey of Washington-based reporters during the 1992 presidential elections. Their findings were that 89 percent of reporters supported Bill Clinton (Democratic contender), 7 percent supported George Bush Sr. (Republican candidate), and 2 percent supported Ross Perot, the independent conservative. The knee-jerk reaction, which Jeff Jacoby supplies in a column for the Jewish World Review, is that, “Inevitably, that liberal persuasion colors reporters' and editors' work. How could it not? When everyone in the newsroom shares a liberal worldview, conservative opinions and ideas are easily dismissed.” Forgetting that his column provides no direct link between liberal politics and liberal reporting, this statement is still outlandish. The Society of Professional Journalists, in its code of ethics, offers many requirements for ethical journalism. Among them, “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing,” “Examine [journalists’] own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others,” and “Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.” These three quotes, excerpted from a much longer list of the ethical duties journalists must perform, address most of the points raised by those who claim liberal media bias. Furthermore, Eric Alterman’s piece, “What Liberal Media?,” published, perhaps ironically, in the liberal newsmagazine the Nation, offers a far more comprehensive overview of “mainstream” news organizations than does Jacoby in any of his columns or in his in-class speech. By truly looking at more than three or four news anchors, and actually covering many facets of the media: radio, newspapers, magazines and television, Alterman more comprehensively proves his point.

But why are most journalists liberal? If one were to examine those ideals held highest by journalists, one would see that they happen to coincide with many progressive ideals. Exposing the truth, especially among governmental organizations, is viewed by most liberals as a very good thing – the very nature of conservatism, that is, the belief that change is bad, contradicts that ideal. Many of those who perceive liberal media bias see it in how cultural beliefs are portrayed. Jacoby, in his in-class lecture, said, “Anytime you read a story about gay marriage, the only opposition quotes are those who are fundamentalist or bigoted. There is no concept of the idea that a person could have other, valid reasons, for not supporting gay marriage.” Jacoby gave no example of a non-bigotry or morals-based reason for not supporting gay marriage, and as far as I can see, there is none. Journalism hold objectivity and scientific reasoning dear, and from a logic-based or scientific standpoint, there is no other reason why a person would not support gay marriage. Yet these very ideals, of objectivity, of challenging the power structure when it is wrong, are cited as examples of media bias. One last example: as much as those who perceive bias in the media complain of liberality, there is no mention of the media in the months and years leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq. The New York Times, frequently seen as the leading liberal newspaper, published Judith Miller and her WMD-touting articles. Other news sources, despite a large portion of the population and many public figures expressing their belief in a lack of WMDs, provided little coverage of this, while repeating the Miller’s talking points. Certainly the media include news organizations with bias; Fox News (as seen in Outfoxed) stands out as a big example of conservative bias, CNN tended towards a more liberal viewpoint earlier in its earlier years, but for the most part, stories are reported objectively, and sources are chosen judiciously.

Media bias is not some conspiracy by either the right or the left in American politics. More so than that, when looking at the groups who claim a bias, it is those groups that feel slighted by the media. Jeff Jacoby quotes Hillary Clinton as accusing the media of a conservative bias, because they devoted much time and energy to covering Bill’s infidelities. On the same tack, however, conservative politicians such as the Bush administration and other leading Republicans claim liberal bias when it seems as if the media is being especially hard on their group. And it makes sense: if I were a public figure who eroded civil liberties, overspent on a needless war, and tried to cut social programs left and right, coverage of this, as well as news stories showing the effects of this, I would instantly claim a bias against me.