Uh oh...

So the publicly unpopular, bipartisan-supported $700 billion bailout plan has died, and largely due to the Republican voters. And now we're all wondering, among other things, what will the media say about our presidential candidates, who both publicly supported the failed bill?

So far, news outlets seem to be reporting just the facts, the 228-205 defeat of the bill and the subsequent Wall Street plummet. Few have commented yet on the effect this will have on the current presidential campaign, and maybe because, it's just not that important at the moment.

Interestingly enough, the assumed Republican support was just not there. However, the Senate still has to vote on the plan on Wednesday, and depending on the outcome of that event, there will probably be a move for reconsideration in the House. As for the rest of us, I concur with this viewer's comment on the Huffington Post: Chickeyd says, "I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, that it didn't pass. I think that's the crux of the problem - no one knows."

Wiki wiki what?

One thing I noticed about Nicholas Carr's article that Brent also commented on earlier in the week is the pervasive use of links in almost all online content. From news articles to personal web pages to online books and even to pictures and photo pages; it seems nowadays that everything is a link to something else, reinforcing the notion that nothing is finite and education is a endless process. This reminded me of the topic for this week's discussion: Wikipedia.

I have to admit, I use Wikipedia more often than I should, and occasionally even for academic purposes, although of course I would never cite it (which is a curious topic in itself, as I have been told by numerous professors that Wikipedia is actually an adequate source of quick, easily digested information, but never quite adequate enough to be quoted in an academic arena). But at times it seems as if Google and Wikipedia are working together in relaying all this supposedly "unreliable" information. In most cases when searching on Google, and I must say, that's the first place I go when I sign online, even if I'm not looking for anything, Wikipedia articles are the first item to appear in the search results. So not only is it the easiest to read, but also the easiest to find. Strengthened by its reputation for "usually" presenting impartial and unbiased articles, and for the idea of its freedom of information, I defend Wikipedia's right to be THE alterable encyclopedia of the 21st Century.

But what is even more interesting than the conversation of the integrity of Wikipedia is discussing the phenomenon that has become "Wiki." You may notice as you read through a Wikipedia article that there are dozens of links for practically any random word. If it has more than five syllables, you'll probably find it linked it a Wiktionary article for those who don't know its denotation, and if it's a person, place or time period, you can rest assured it will be linked to a Wikipedia article explaining its significance. Just as Google turned into a verb in the late 90's, so has Wikipedia since its English-language debut in 2001. To "wiki" something is supposedly to "gain a quick understanding of a topic" and can be used in any context, though it is rarely associated with research done outside of wiki- forums. And by forums, I mean the various wiki-sites that are all connected, related, and, yes, LINKED to each other throughout: Wikipedia, WikiAnswers, Wiktionary, WikiQuote, WikiBooks, WikiSource, WikiNews, WikiSpecies, WikiVersity, and, one I just discovered, WikiLeaks. While WikiAnswers and WikiLeaks are not actually endorsed by WikiMedia (the foundation responsible for the other wiki sites), they are becoming increasingly popular and perhaps have more relevance for this particular course.

WikiLeaks has been around since early 2006 but is most well-known for recently exposing private information about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, namely, the email hack. WikiLeaks was the site that broke the story practically the same day with screenshots and quotes from her actual emails, though Gawker ran with it and, as a more popular website, took the credit. WikiLeaks also recently posted a leak of a draft of the US Economic Stabilization Act, 2008, quoting an $800 billion bailout, rather than the publicized $700 billion.

So what does the media think of WikiLeaks? Well, from what I gather, it is not a news website but merely a "truth" website, and so news sources can use information provided on WikiLeaks and investigate further. In this sense, it's fantastic. But government agencies tend to disagree. The "mission statement" type explanation of the site's purpose is, "assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people." Since their launch in 2006, WikiLeaks has been shut down by different governments (it is not limited to the US) at least twice and has been officially blocked by the Chinese government since 2007 (although it claims on the website that, for interested Chinese citizens, there are ways around the block).

Wired.com ran an article last year on the site's success. But not everything WikiLeaks posts is for the good of the country. For example, about two weeks ago, hackers watching Bill O'Reilly's public denouncement of WikiLeaks for publicizing Sarah Palin's emails decided to hack into his website database (BillOReilly.com) and expose the personal information of dozens of his subscribers just to prove a point.

Wiki sites and the freedom of sharing and altering information has become a hallmark of our generation. The Internet-boomers love the option of playing an active role in media communications and shaping the language of our time (hence the exponential popularity of blogs since their introduction). But of course, wiki sites come with potential hazards, the possibility of fraud and false information, and as a result, eventually, somewhere, there must be a censor. But regardless, the notion of responsibility-free reporting, and consequence-free political leaking is very new to the Internet in such an organized manner. What kind of difference could resources like this have made in past political scandals? What could it mean for the future of politics?

And...where will this go? What else can we wikify that could revolutionize our world by giving everyone a voice? WikiWhat? WikiWhy?

ps... this was long, i'm sorry if it hurt.

Funny gets the point across...

So I haven't been around lately on the blogosphere and I apologize for my absence. To make it up to you, before I get into a serious and lengthy post, here is an SNL video (I'm sure everyone has seen) that critiques Friday's presidential debates. Have a laugh, and come back later.

No debate...no media support...

Many people have already organized their personal debate watch parties, as per Michelle Obama's suggestion, and news coverage has already begun in anticipation of what would be one of the most-watched political debates in campaign history. But the first presidential debate of this election, set to air this Friday, has suddenly become an even bigger news story, as, pretty close to the last minute, Senator John McCain threw the media a fast one and said... hey, let's put it off!

The Republican presidential candidate issued a statement today claiming that he intends to "suspend" his campaign in an effort to devote his time and energies to solving the current economic crisis. He is calling for bipartisan politics and, essentially, teamwork between the two candidates to develop effective legislation and solutions to the state of the economy.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me. I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and asking the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

While the tone of his speech was that of genuine concern for the welfare of our nation, his main point was hardly received so affectionately. According to an LA Times article, Senator Obama was in complete agreement that bipartisan politics are necessary to resolve the current crisis, however, he also responded that a political debate between the two candidates is needed "now more than ever."

Obama stated that suspending the debate was the last thing on his agenda:

And despite who suggested what when, the media is not too pleased. As reported on DrudgeReport.com, David Letterman held nothing back in voicing his opposition to the absurd notion of putting a campaign "on hold" for the sake of economic issues. Apparently, McCain was scheduled to appear on Letterman's show tonight, but cancelled stating that his campaign is now redirected to Washington DC. "You don't suspend your campaign," said Letterman, "This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil." And he then added, "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

Both right- and left-wing journalists are eager for a one-on-one presidential debate. Can McCain afford to make any more enemies in the media? Already, this does not look good for the Republican candidate, as media outlets tend to be siding with Obama, quoting over and over again his response that the "next president needs to be able to deal with more than one thing at once." As for a media that has already been denied full access to its presidential candidates, it will be interesting to see the aftermath if the debate on foreign policy, scheduled for 9:00 pm in Oxford, Mississippi on Friday, does not occur.

McCain Age Card

Just as a commentary on different ways the media is handling McCain's health and age issues (as we briefly touched on in class), I found this video on BarelyPolitical.com's YouTube page. It was posted just yesterday and already received over 20,000 hits. While not an official press or campaign ad, it's interesting nonetheless.

Online news consumption

Many people claimed the first-ever televised presidential debates in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy drastically changed the outcome of that election. Kennedy, they say, looked appealing, calm and confident in his posture, hair, wardrobe and facial expressions, while Nixon was, simply, not. He was disheveled and looked older than his age, but of course that wouldn't affect the validity of what he had to say, right? Many people watching the debate on television asserted that JFK won without a doubt, while those who tuned in on the radio and couldn't see the senator's dapper smile were certain Nixon knew what he was talking about. Nonetheless, JFK won the election, and the rest is history. Since then, much emphasis has been placed on wardrobe choices, hairstyles, and facial movements. But in the Internet generation, I wonder if there is a different image candidates need to worry about?

Below is an interesting chart on the Pew site that plots the percent of Internet users who read the news online. The green line represents the percent of users who have ever gone online and read the news, and the red line represents the percentage of those who read the news online just yesterday. As you can see, the highest number of Internet users in the past ten years are now reading the news online as we near the end of this Presidential campaign.



If more and more people are searching for their political and social updates on the Internet, it would make sense to have handsome, vibrant and appealing resources available to them, and the candidates' website is one good place to start. Tagging on my post below, I wonder what effect this will have on web-savvy Democrat and PC-challenged Republican?

Well, I have more myspace friends than you...

We all know how incredibly silly it is to compare the number of friends we have on Facebook and MySpace, and yet when that random guy we definitely don't know friends us, we still click "accept" just so the little meter of our popularity - the friend count - goes up one. Well an article on the Pew website recently addressed this phenomenon in reference to the projected popularity of our presidential candidates (how do you like that alliteration).

The article claims that this election is referred to as the "first Internet election" and analyzes some of the ways in which the web has become a platform for campaigning through "organizing, fundraising, networking and analyzing news."

Apparently, throughout most of the campaign, Obama's website and online resources toppled McCain's substantially. Though in recent weeks, the McCain web team has seemed to catch up and now has networking resources online that "rival Obama's." But some other findings of the Pew study were the levels of popularity among the most prominent social networking groups, such as MySpace and Facebook. Obama's MySpace page, which is cleanly laid out and easy to navigate boasts more than 540,000 friends, while McCain's MySpace, a little less traditional in its layout (and personally, more confusing), lists just over 100,000. Obama also has more Facebook supporters by a 5-to-1 margin, and more than four times as many videos posted to his YouTube page, with 1,330 compared to McCain's 279.

An early audit of the presidential candidates' online resources during the primaries revealed that Obama's website was among the most advanced and useful to supporters even back in July 2007, while McCain's "lagged far behind." Even now, Obama has far more tools for supporters interested in grassroots activities, and McCain only recently caught up by adding a personal profile application to his website that Obama had in operation over a year ago.

The very popular MyBO pages (sample on top) on Obama's website have been active for months, and allow for individual profiles, blogs, links, groups and networking with other Obama supporters. They are easy to set up and use and mimic facebook pages. However, until this past month, McCain's options for customization allowed a personal page that resulted in an error message and had very little practicality. In the past month though, the McCain team has completely revamped their website and added McCainSpace, which are personalized pages that are comparable to Obama's with similar features (on bottom).

As for appealing to different demographic groups, Obama's website houses pages for about 20 different groups from veterans to women to kids and environmentalists. McCain's site has only 17 (11 of which were added within the last month), and among those he does not appeal to are LBGTQ, Native Americans, kids under 18, Generation "O" (25-35), seniors, and students. Among those Obama does not include (that McCain does) are racing fans, Catholics, lawyers and Lebanese Americans.

With all of this information and more, the Pew research group determined that Obama is hands-down winning the Internet campaign, even despite McCain's many website enhancements. HitWise reported that of the hits between both websites in the week ending August 30, Obama's received 72% while McCain only had 28%. With all of the additions and efforts made by the McCain team to become a more powerful online force in the past few weeks, it would seem that the Pew research group is correct in its assumption that this election is largely internet based, and maybe the behind-the-times Republican candidate is finally beginning to figure that out. But, is it too late?

What comes first?

Even though McCain and Obama claimed they would cease the childish attacks and multiple fallacies of this election to focus on the real issues that have been plaguing the American people, it seems nothing can resolve this very elementary feud.

Now I do realize that part of campaigning is to demonstrate to the voters not only why you are the best candidate but also why your opponent is the worst. However, this is just getting old. On FoxNews.com yesterday, Mosheh Oinounou reported in an article entitled "McCain Lights up Obama" that the republican candidate's new slogan (for at least a week or two), referencing Obama's support of war in Iraq, is "Country first or Obama first?" Really now? I won't go into how I feel about that, but what tops it off is Obama's response: "So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it’s fair to ask –- which country?" So now our democratic candidate is implying that John McCain, the renowned war hero, is unpatriotic? This is just getting silly.

However, John McCain apparently will be delivering another, much more dignified response at a town hall meeting in New Mexico today (as reported on TheAtlantic.com).

Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue. He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment. Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal - regardless of the facts on the ground. And he voted against funding for troops in combat, after saying it would be wrong to do so. He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America, but because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq, how it would risk a wider war and threaten the security of American families. I am going to end this war, but when I bring our troops home, they will come home with honor and victory, leaving Iraq secured as a democratic ally in the Arab heartland.

I'm not quite sure what really comes first for either of these candidates: the US, American people, another country, themselves? Though I think the last option may be the most accurate, it seems in this election, the only priority is winning.

Who wants it more?

A recent LA Times article analyzed the responses of the presidential candidates to the current unfavorable conditions on Wall Street. Unfortunately, I haven't followed their responses too closely myself, so what was reported in this article was somewhat surprising.

McCain claimed that, if he were President, he would "fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and create an agency to overhaul weakened financial firms," whereas Obama was more in favor of "injecting more money into the current battered financial system."

Both McCain and Obama are clearly making strong decisions in an effort to appear as agents of change for the struggling economy, but who seems more liberal? According to Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation, "It has long been Republican economic orthodoxy to warn against government bailouts, and for McCain to embrace the idea is really pretty stunning." Comparing the candidates' solutions at the surface would suggest that McCain is promoting more radical changes to be made in the country's financial situation, perhaps as an effort to fulfill the "maverick" role into which he and his running mate have been cast.

These two videos show the candidates' recent ads for change in Wall Street. While Obama's is longer than McCain's, it also references the McCain team's "untruths" in this campaign and so is not entirely focused on the economy. You decide which sounds more like a proponent of real economic reformation.

McCain - "Foundation"



Obama - "Plan for Change"

The Web of Lies... or, Less than Truths

The LA Times ran an article on their website this morning that dissects the role of supposed "lies" of this presidential election. While the Times is general a liberal-biased publication, this article grabbed my attention because it actually highlighted mistakes in advertising and accusations made by both sides of the campaign.

I must admit that throughout high school and part of college, I never followed politics and was only interested in the elections when it came to the countdown of electoral votes on TV (Bush-Gore comes to mind with its exciting election day coverage). In the 2004 election, I paid more attention and did my part by voting, and now in 2008, I am trying to make up for years of political ignorance by understanding what these candidates and all their media are throwing at us. While this is only the second presidential election in which I have taken an interest, however, I am well aware that more than 50% of what the candidates, their representatives and their respective media allies dish out is not 100% true. And I suppose, in a way, it wouldn't be quite as exciting if it were.

Cathleen Decker of the LA Times explores the variety and sustainability of lies in this campaign, suggesting that they play a more prevalent role in 2008 than in any other presidential election, and that when candidates are confronted with their misspoken facts and assumptions, the response is to defend rather than repeal. "A campaign adage has proved itself again: Repeat something often enough, and it becomes real, even when it isn't."

Both major party candidates for president vowed to run a different kind of campaign, implicitly promising a break from the spin-fests that past contests had become. But the close race and the tumultuous media environment in which McCain and Obama now find themselves appear to have crushed those notions.

So is the prevalence of lies and falsehoods in this campaign all the candidates' fault? Or is it the media that paints every misstatement as a lie, perhaps when it is really something else?

In this presidential campaign, as in others before it, words can be shaded in a variety of ways -- direct falsehoods, technically accurate but misleading statements, incendiary suggestions or cherry-picked information lacking necessary context. Careful attention to wording is key.

Among the so-called "lies" and "spins" of this campaign are those about kindergarten sex education, lipstick on a pig, the bridge to nowhere, supporting earmarks and loan guarantees for the auto industry, just to name a few. But Decker makes a good point when she highlights the fact that mainstream media is not the only force pushing these controversies down our throats. She quotes Republican political analyst Dan Schnur, "The current media environment allows misstatements from both sides to skitter through the Internet and onto ideologically based cable and radio shows...there's plenty of talk shows and sites to deliver the message when the mainstream media chooses not to."

So how can the Internet generation be sure it's receiving the truth about lies? A lot of research, apparently. Though, it does make me wonder about those strapped-for-time people who read one or two political blogs along with a news column and only get half the story...those people who, before this class, were like me...

May the media be with you...

As the video below came to my attention today, I began to wonder how many other celebrities are endorsing candidates in this election and what that means in the expanse of the campaign. After all, "Hollywood" is the largest film-making enterprise in the world and its influence in so many aspects of the American people's lives is both incredible and somewhat creepy.

Even for those not following the primaries or presidential election, it is almost impossible not to realize the depth of Obama's celebrity endorsement. It's everywhere.


There are reggae and hip-hop songs made about him that have been playing on popular radio stations, and his celebrity supporters often show up at his speeches, which are then fed to us by all the news media eager to get the prize-winning photo of DeNiro's good side.

But what influence do celebrity endorsers really have on a political campaign, besides their pocketbooks of course? I mean, many of them are actors, after all, which could mean they're just as capable of falsehoods as any other political figure. So they can't be valued as more believable than the candidate himself, right? But then there is the issue of familiarity. As Matt Damon implies below, we really don't know much about Sarah Palin, yet most people in their 20s and 30s know Matt Damon fairly well. And in this respect, Obama has all his constituents covered. With supporters like DeNiro, Chris Rock, Oprah, Halle Berry, Scarlett Johansen, Ben Affleck and George Clooney, the democratic candidate appeals to all ages, ethnicities and genders.

So to combat all this, who does McCain have in his corner? An article from the Daily Standard two weeks ago lists a few who have financially offered their assistance. Among them were Dean Cain, James Caan, Jon Voight, Lou Ferrigno, Adam Carolla, Lacy Chabert, Angie Harmon, Victoria Jackson, Gerald McRaney, Jon Cryer, Lorenzo Lamas, Kevin Sorbo, Patricia Heaton, George Newbern, and Robert Duvall. And among those, I must admit, I only recognize four, although having Hercules' support is never a bad thing. However, Mat Damon's viedo received over 1.5 million views in only two days, and somehow I doubt the Daily Standard has that kind of circulation.

Lipstick Meme

Perhaps we're all already sick of this story, considering it happened soooo long ago on Tuesday(which alone indicates the role of media in our lives). But what amazes me is the unbelievably rapid retaliation and sequence of events following the last breath after Obama's uttering "lipstick on a pig." As soon as the words escaped his mouth, they were on the title of every political blog and news story on the Internet and by the next day made every newspaper. That kind of publicity can't be bought (well maybe it can) and so the McCain team swam with the momentum of slander and built the comment up as sexism, degradation and disgust.

They even posted a video illustrating Barack Obama as a sexist, chauvinistic "pig." However, before I had a chance to view this clever and righteous web ad, it was removed from YouTube and replaced with the message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive." Darn. But luckily, the John McCain website posted the dialogue of their ad just for people like me. After reading, I have only two words: short and silly.

It's astounding that so many more important issues are being discussed every day by these candidates, yet lipstick is the headline of all the news stories. And really, it wasn't a big deal when McCain used the phrase in reference to Clinton's healthcare plan or Obama's economic plan all in the same election (and posted on his official webpage).

The cartoon below was taken from an LA Times article illustrating the commonality of the term and, at the same time, the frivolity of our political candidates.

An interesting question remains, however: Would the Republican campaign for President have amplified this harmless comment if the media hadn't first latched on? And is it even possible for the media to resist such alliteration as Palin, pit bull, President, pig?

(please note: I do not support the degradation of women, pigs or pit bulls; I happen to be one...a woman, that is...and have kept the others as pets, and I think both my pig and pit bull would be intimidated by Sarah Palin, with or without lipstick)

Happy Wednesday!

This blog was created as a forum for discussion and exploration of the 2008 presidential election for use in Colin McEnroe's English 865 course at Trinity College. I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and if not, just look at the pretty clouds (picture taken from the peak of Mt. Fuji in case you're curious).