My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

Posted on 2009-09-11 by David

I realized after writing earlier this morning about the way new media is changing the news that my experience was a perfect example of the way that old and new media can interact to augment each other. It also pointed me to one of the key factors that is hurting existing media organizations and thus a possible way to reverse the trend in theory. Unfortunately I am unable to identify a business model that would take advantage of this theoretical key.

Consider the example. A newspaper journalist decides to do a story on the impact of new media on our political system. He interviews someone who has used new media to follow a political campaign in a way that traditional media sources sis not provide. He contacts elected officials and other people connected with government. He contacts a political blogger (me in this case). he takes all the information that he has gathered and using his own experience and his skill in the art of written communication tells a story showing how new media is changing the face of politics and what it means to citizens. He turns the story over to his editors who take that story, assign it a place in the paper, edit it for content and in the interest of meeting size limitations on their physical page trims part of the story – the part that explains what this means to the average reader. It has now become a story without a moral – not because the journalist failed, but because of space limitations.

After that happened I, as a blogger who is not constrained by any physical space limitations in what I write, posted the entire list of questions I was asked as the journalist prepared his story and my full answers. This is the unfiltered data from one source which the journalist used to create his story. One symbiosis between traditional journalism and citizen journalism is that those who are interested in what the journalist wrote could look into the raw questions and answers that produced the story and decide for themselves what more they can learn than the paper was able to publish.

I realized this morning as I reflected upon the process of producing that story from fact gathering to publication that a key factor that is hurting old media organizations is that they are trying so hard to put out the maximum amount of information within their limited physical space that they have sacrificed the moral to virtually every story (that’s easy to do because taking out the moral can also make them feel more objective) and the result is that readership declines (especially paid readership) not because reporters are doing their thinking for them, but because almost all thought is expunged from the final product in the interest of keeping a maximum amount of data.

The theoretical way to reverse that trend would be to use digital media with traditional reporting to again publish the whole story – without space limitations. Those organizations interested in having a physical paper could use the paper as a gateway to the digital content – showing teasers of stories with the full story online and/or only printing the top story or stories in the paper while printing all stories worth printing in the digital version. The digital version could be augmented with complete references and links where possible to the original sources on each article so that readers could dig deeper as they were so inclined. By doing this the organization could even begin to learn in more detail what stories and sources their readers were most interested in and follow up on those with more traditional reporting. This encourages the new media ecosystem which them serves as a valuable tool and resource for the traditional media.

Like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a firm business model for how to support this (how to fund it being a major missing component), but I think I am getting a picture of how these “competing” interests can and should work together.

Posted in culture, technology | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

How New Media is Changing News

Posted on 2009-09-11 by David

Yesterday Holly asked if print media was on its way out. She was quoting from an article by Dave Duffy about the decline of newspapers and the rise of citizen journalism. In it he apparently made this hopeful statement:

I believe that it will lead to the salvation of freedom in America because more people will become better informed about what is really happening in the country.

As a long time blogger that’s a flattering idea, but as someone who has watched many bloggers and much online discussion as a participant and from an academic standpoint I think we need to be careful how much we expect from the impact of citizen journalism. It is an important shift in public discourse, but I think we would be misguided to think that the disappearance of traditional journalism is either necessary or positive. Not long ago I was asked to contribute to an article about the way new media is changing the world of politics. While the reporter did a great job and was kind enough to send me a copy of his story, the paper trimmed the story for publication to meet space requirements and removed all quotes in the article that did not come from elected officials or the person whose experience was meant to illustrate the point. In doing so they removed all reference to what these changes really meant. I’d like to share all the questions I was asked as well as my responses here (which is more than the reporter could have done even if he was so inclined).

What are the benefits of politicians maintaining a blog?

There are many benefits that come from a politician maintaining a blog, both for themselves and for their constituents. The primary benefit is that they can maintain communication with their constituents in a way that they can control (in other words, they are not dependent on space limitations or the biases of an outside news organization). A good blog would enable them to create a firsthand record which they can use to explain or defend themselves from later accusations as opponents may take things out of context and voters often forget the details. (Even the politicians can forget the details without a timely record.)

What are the drawbacks?

The only universal drawback is that it takes time. Also, if the blog allows open responses there is a risk of hecklers and trolls. Not all people are able to deal with those negative elements of such digital communication forums.

How has blogging changed the face of politics for politicians?

I don’t think we really know the full answer to that yet. So far we have been able to see that blogging makes it impossible for anyone (politicians or others) to absolutely control the message that people receive. Blogging makes it so that there are a wider array of information (and misinformation) sources available to everyone so it becomes extremely important to be able to sort through all that information and be able to accurately discard the misinformation. The upside to blogging is that it has very low barriers to entry so politicians can make themselves available as a primary source of information for their constituents more easily than when their only options were media coverage, town hall style meetings, direct mailings, and other less efficient means of communication. Overall I would say that it has had a leveling effect on the political playing field but it also means that it takes even more work to keep on top of the political process.

How has it changed politics for constituents?

See above – there is more information to sort through and constituents must also hone their ability to sort the truth from the garbage, just as their elected officials have the opportunity to become primary sources of information for them they can use blogging to open themselves up as primary sources of information for their elected officials, etc.

I understand you participated in Blogger Press. What do you make of it? What do you see in the future for forums such as this?

I have participated in a couple of blogger press conferences and I think there is great potential there. Bloggers are different from traditional media sources because they do not have the luxury of getting a paycheck for their work. Sometimes this results in better information – often is doesn’t. It virtually always results in a different perspective than is found from professionals in the media industries. I have heard some people argue that bloggers depend on the mainstream media for their information and that they are just acting as a secondary filter. In many cases it’s true, but there are many bloggers who go dig up original information and stories as well. I don’t think that bloggers can or should replace the traditional media, but I do believe that it is very valuable to have the second perspective that bloggers provide alongside the perspectives offered by more traditional news sources. I think there could be a lot of give and take between bloggers and journalists to provide a much richer public discourse than either group could provide alone. I hope to see more blogger press conferences in the future and expect that if that happens we as bloggers, press, politicians, and the public will discover ways that those events can improve our public understanding and dialog around political issues.

My point is that citizen journalism and traditional journalism will best serve society if they complement each other rather than expecting to compete with each other.

Posted in culture, Local | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

Posted on 2009-09-10 by David

photo credit: sgroi

Let’s pretend that we are starting from scratch on the health care overhaul push – that none of the existing proposals will be used as the template for a reform bill. In other words, let’s assume that the plan outlined in President Obama’s speech is the primary blueprint for the reform bill that Congress will have to consider. As I predicted he tried to strike a balance between being bold and rocking the boat too much calling both better and worse plans than his “a radical shift” that would be too much for something as economically large as the health care industry.

Now that I have read the entire speech I have four non-starters, one gem, two contradictions, and five questions after his speech that deserve public reaction. I’ll start with the non-starters because they are not non-starters put together, each one must be addressed before anything he proposes can be considered in any degree.

Continue reading →

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , , | 22 Comments

Predictable

Posted on 2009-09-09 by David

As a political junkie you would expect that I would be endlessly fascinated by all things political and that I would be very excited to listen to a speech by the President (even if only to find things to contradict when I disagree with him). Once upon a time that would have been true, but not anymore. While I am still anxious to be engaged in politics and the political dialog I find that too much of politics is very formulaic and predictable. I can easily say what the speech by the President will be like without even listening to or reading the transcript or any report about it.

In his speech tonight the president will talk about the importance and of Health Care reform. He will take time to rebut some of the more ridiculous rumors that have been circulated by his opponents and he will make his approach to health care seem perfectly reasonable – in fact he will be trying to strike a balance of being bold while not rocking to boat too much. The overall effect of the speech will be to make many people more comfortable with the approach he is taking while conveniently masking the fact that nothing in the current Health Care reform proposals actually addresses the real issues that plague our system of health care.

The only thing I can’t predict is whether enough people will be assuaged (or lulled into a false sense of security) to get a health care bill passed as the President hopes. While I will always hope for every president the best of success for the nation, this effort by the President shows no indication of promoting what is best for the nation (except in his words) and so I continue to hope that this effort flounders until the leaders of the country are ready to look at the actual problem and craft a solution to that problem within the limits of their authority rather than looking at their political goals and trying to convince the rest of us that their goals will solve real problems.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Future Amendment – Fiscal Discipline

Posted on 2009-09-09 by David

I believe I have been very clear about what I think of the 16th Amendment. For anyone who wasn’t sure – I think it should go the way of the 18th Amendment and be repealed. Not long ago I found a group that feels the same way and is pushing for the 28th amendment to do just that. Their website does not give their proposed amendment a prominent a place as it deserves so I will copy their proposal here.

Section 1. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual’s earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues, and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions or credits will be allowed.

Section 3.

A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanism to meet budget requirements will be allowed.

B. For purposes of this section, “War” shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and duly authorized by the Congress under the terms of the “War Powers Act” of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.

Section 4. All agencies, programs, entitlements and other devices that will be excised by budgetary requirements will be returned to the responsibility of the individual States. No federal regulations or legislation will dictate how the States fund or execute such devices.

Section 5. The Congress may not make State eligibility for redistribution of revenue contingent on compliance with regulations or legislation that has the effect of a nationally uniform standard.

Section 6. Those areas of federal responsibility prescribed by the original Constitution will have budgetary priority. No bill will be passed that funds any other concern without first meeting the budgetary requirements of these areas. No funding will be included in the budget for a concern that is the responsibility of and reserved to the States.

Section 7. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes”

This proposed amendment solves a number of problems that currently  plague our approach to government spending. The first two sections remove the sixteenth amendment and replace it with an income tax that is limited to 15% on individual incomes and 10% of corporate profits with no deductions or credits. I’m sure the intent of those rates is to be somewhat close to budget neutral. Although I would like to see budget reductions I think a constitutional limit on income tax rates is a positive step.

The third section stipulates that we not engage in deficit spending except in time of war. Section 3(B) defines war – although I appreciate the mandate that war debts be repaid within 15 years of the end of the war I see two problems with this section: first and most importantly, the President is not authorized to declare war (their definition of war should require that war be defined as conflicts that have been declared by Congress); second, requiring funds to be repaid within a set time after the end of a war would be a disincentive to acknowledge the completion of the conflict (it would be far better to require deficit war spending to be repaid within a set time after the beginning of the war – that would encourage the ending of conflicts both to hold down costs, and to allow for the repayment in a timely manner rather than delaying the date when repayment was required by keeping the “war” open).

Sections 4 and 5 help to restore state sovereignty in the use of their funds consistent with the 10th amendment. In Section 6 I would strike the word “original” as it may be necessary at some time to fund something through the government that was not included in the original Constitution.

Section 7 narrows the much abused commerce clause so that the government no longer has any excuse to regulate what I choose to pay my neighbor for mowing my lawn simply because he purchased gasoline that had been shipped across state lines.

Overall I think this a good proposal to remind people inside and outside government that Congress was not intended to babysit every aspect of society and commerce in the nation. It’s sad that such a reaffirmation would have to be written into the Constitution – but evidence suggests that it does need to be reaffirmed legally in that document.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Posted on 2009-09-08 by David

Having read and processed all the documents upon which our Constitution was built as well the Constitution itself and each existing amendment along with other significant expressions of American political thought through our history I think I have established a fairly solid foundation for my own political thinking that can be explored by anyone who might be curious about where I stand on fundamental issues of our government. Now I would like to venture into the future by exploring four amendments that I believe we ought to make to our Constitution.

These are not intended to be presented in any particular order (such as the order of importance in my mind) which is why I will not suggest any number for any of them. In fact, the first one I will present here was chosen only because I have already exposed my position on the issue multiple times already. (None of the four are new topics for my writing.)

The founders of our nation made a conscious decision to keep the federal government free from any particular local interest by stipulating that Congress should have complete control over the capital city and that the city should be independent of any state. They certainly did not expect hundreds of thousands of people to have no voice in the government that led them, nor did they intend for the federal government to be as powerful and controlling as the one we have built up. I have been a vocal opponent of the push to expand the house by two seats and give one of those seats to Washington D.C. but that is because the bill contradicts the current Constitution and rather than addressing the real issue in accordance to our legal foundation it ignores our fundamental law with a convenient but half-baked political compromise.

The proper solution to this situation is to pass an amendment that would allow Washington D.C. the legitimate voting representation in the House that their population warrants. I believe that the amendment should be worded so that it does not apply exclusively to Washington D.C.. Some might argue that not all our territories should have a voting representative in Congress but it seems only right than any territory in which residents pay the same federal taxes as the residents of the several states should have voting representation in the House of Representatives. Under that restriction Washington D.C. qualifies and anytime another territory has a legitimate claim about “taxation without representation” (the mantra that supporters of voting rights for D.C. have adopted) the problem would already be constitutionally solved rather than having to patch each leak in the boat that we may encounter in the future.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

I Pledge

Posted on 2009-09-07 by David

With all the uproar over the showing of this video to elementary students I have been asked to weigh in on the video and whether it was appropriate to show it to the students. Of course others will have their own opinions and you are free to view the video yourself and let me know if you agree with me, or why you disagree with me. (I have no doubt that different people will disagree with me for very different reasons.)

Let me say right off that I don’t believe that the video should have been shown to children without informing their parents in advance. Parents are always the primary decision-makers with regard to what their children should be exposed to in matters of values and this video was definitely a matter of values. Having said that, I don’t believe that this was a particularly devious or pernicious video (regardless of what Gayle Ruzika believes).

Some who are opposed to the showing of this video believe that it is an attempt to brainwash the children. I doubt this is the case. The message is actually addressed to the President as a show of support. Distributing it among children was meant to encourage them to pledge to do some good of their own choosing.

If the makers of the video intended children as their audience then they have no idea how to go about it. The fast scrolling words and constant movement at the beginning of the video will fail to get any massage to such an audience. On top of that, the pledges in the video will either make no impression or they will confuse a younger audience. If it is as harmless as I am suggesting why would I object to showing it to children who will be either confused or unaffected by it? Because at best it is a waste of school time. Why should my taxes and my childrens time be spent watching something that has no positive value for their education? At worst showing the video opens the door for teachers to take over a parental role in discussing the various pledges as they try to reduce them to a level that could be understood by a 5 or 7 year-old. Again, why should my taxes support that?

If the target audience was for older youth (teenagers and college students) then the video is well made (meaning it would connect with that audience). It still has the problem of promoting some dangerous biases of the creators (confusing service to the president with respect for the president as one example), but it will always be necessary to compensate for the biases of those who are promoting ideas because the promotion of ideas is a values issue by definition – which again is an area where the parents are always primarily responsible until their children reach adulthood.

So here’s my pledge.

I pledge to continue to believe in the good intentions of others, whether they be elected officials or simply socially and politically active individuals and groups, even when I fundamentally disagree with what they are trying to do. I pledge to  be civil no matter how passionately I disagree with anyone and to treat other people with respect and decency in all my interactions. I pledge to fight for what I value and seek to make my country, state, community, and neighborhood a better place. I pledge that no matter how much I may want something I will not make promises that my grandchildren will have to keep in order to achieve it, nor will I ask other to do so.

And I don’t have to go to usaservice.org (which is actually serve.gov) to make or keep that pledge.

Posted in culture, National, technology | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Free and Strong America

Posted on 2009-09-04 by David

I got an invitation yesterday to donate to the Free and Strong America PAC. The stated goal of this organization is to “advance conservative social, fiscal, and foreign policies.” Considering that this is Mitt Romney’s organization I had a bit of a laugh. Romney might advance conservative social policies (depending entirely upon your personal definition of  “conservative”), and could probably be depended on to advance fiscal policies that are conservative to one degree or another, but I doubt that he would recognize a conservative foreign policy if it camped on his doorstep or picketed the central office of the Free and Strong America PAC.

The invitation declared that they could only accomplish their goals with my enthusiastic support. I wonder what they will be able to do with my utter indifference?

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Constitutional Amendment 27

Posted on 2009-09-04 by David

I was fascinated when I learned that the 27th Amendment was included in the original proposal for the Bill of Rights.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Unlike the original 10 amendments this one, along with one other was not ratified. Apparently we thought better of that choice after 200 years when Congress was taking on more power and we realized that having one more check on there power would always be a good thing.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Constitutional Amendment 26

Posted on 2009-09-03 by David

Like the 15th and 19th amendments before it, the 26th Amendment is direct and to the point in extending the right to vote to a previously disenfranchised group.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

With three amendments extending the right to vote I think it is always fair to ask – are we done?

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments