On the Monkey Cage, John Sides blogged about public knowledge of recent political events, ones that we can assume were reported on by the mass media. In this blog titled, Why Campaigns Have So Few "Game-Changers," he commented that the survey showed that Americans cared very little about this campaign and the political events that have occurred.

While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.

Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.

Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?

Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.

Tweets v. Likes

Tweets vs. likes: Ana Analysis of Monkey Cage Data

Joshua Tucker on February 26, 2012

Joshua Tucker, writer for the Monkey Cage once posted a question about why some blog posts are more likely to be “tweeted” and why others are subject to being “liked” on Facebook. Later, Georgetown student compiled data from the Monkey Cage and made an analysis of why certain blog posts are tweeted or liked.

The student’s analysis theorized that blog posts are liked based upon their graphical content. Blogs that have graphics or graphs are more likely to be “liked” on Facebook because of this social network’s graphical and picture orientated nature. On the other hand, blogs with more “wonkiness” received more tweets as Twitter is a text based network.

This basic study reveals some insight about the orientation of both social networks. Facebook is highly dependent on graphics and pictures for their internet traffic. Twitter is based on amusing, witty, and short “tweets.”

Another aspect of the tweet and like war is the public versus private spheres. Twitter is seen more as a public forum while Facebook has some “perceived” privacy towards your own friends and family. Due to this difference, Tucker commented that he is much more likely to post highly partisan ideas on the semi-private Facebook wall than on Twitter’s public forum.

He believes that this certainly has some impact on political behavior over social networks. Tucker theorizes that the difference between the public v. private domains of Facebook and Twitter will help differentiate the effects of social media on the audience.

Social media seems to counter act the hypodermic reception theory. Because users can be more selective in their media source options, the audience is more active and is not a passive recipient. The internet also balances the “agenda setting” behavior of televised news. The “agenda” on social media sites is entirely set by the users, not by the company trying to make profits off of popularizing a particular view. Therefore, social media and media on the internet may allow its audience to become more active and aware members of society.

Academic Hope for TV News Station

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/02/13/melissa-harris-perrys-new-tv-show/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/business/media/host-of-msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-is-a-professor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Much of the "concerned" American public has strayed away from televised news due to its disappointing nature and lack of actual important academic content. Much of us are bored and simply do not care for the infotainment about Whitney Houston, award shows, or the murderer that may or may not be in my neighborhood (who can blame some news stations though, as "infotainment" is their business model).

MSNBC will become the first major news program to feature a talk show by a real tenured professor. The news station has a new program with Melissa Harry-Perry, a professor of political science.

MSNBC's newest academic addition scratches at the surface of the media's role as the protectors and promoters of the public interest and education. Perhaps this new model will become a trend for other televised new programs to follow? In hopes that it certainly does cause a new trend, the American public may prove to be more than just a mindless consumer market place. Academic scholars in well established news programs will provide an opportunity for a change in mass media towards its original goals of professionalism and objectivity.

Maybe, there is hope that televised news programs will provide "intellectual stimulation" for the general American Masses.

"Holy" Crap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msT_lI7mNcA  Original assembly.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/god-and-man-vanderbilt_626331.html Blog entry.

Nota bene: Updates will be posted as the media jumps on this. I am blogging this as it is unfolding.

     On the class blog, I will try to keep my personal religious beliefs out of this. It is hard to find an appropriately controversial subject to analyze without it having any sort of personal impact.

     So what we have here is a holy way. Literally. The Vanderbilt administration has placed rules on the student population that a faith-based organization cannot pick their leaders based on faith. While different denominations of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and other don’t normally agree, they’ve seemed to come to a strong unity on this issue.

     But what will the media say? As this unfolds, we will discuss the handling especially by mainstream media sources that cater to the left and to the right. God help us when Glen Beck gets ahold of this, and when Nancy Grace states her case.

Watergate Lesson Forgotten?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/politics/watergate-reform/index.html

     The problem of potentially currupt finacial backing behind political candidates has been a big issue since the Watergate Scandal. Many poeple think a huge lesson of Watergate was that big money and secrecy currupts. Some experts are warning the public that the reforms made after Watergate to regulate campaign fundraising have been almost completely thrown away. There are no longer big regulations of campaign fundraising, but does that really matter? The flow of money to candidates is going to happen regardless of the law or regulations put in place to try and stop it. Candidates will get the money they need through any way possible, and if we think that simple reforms will stop them, we are nieve. Corporations and other powerful sources of money will always supply money to political candidates because they recieve favors in return for the money, whether its legal or not. The main issue is the secrecy of the sources behind all of the money the candidates get, because there could be some curruption involved.

       

    It is impossible to stop the influence of money on political campaigning, but it is possible to somewhat regulate it. A political scientist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts says, "The remedy is publicity". The most powerful way to help regualte the secret funding of political campaigns is the media. If the media exposed more information about which corporations are feeding money to which canidates, we could control the flow of money a little more and somewhat eliminate curruption. Transparency would give voters the information needed to hold the candidates accountable. However, in reality, it is unlikely that much will change about the fincacial backing of political candidates. This years elecetion will have an enormous amount of secret financial backing to candidates.

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

Last night, 02-02-12, on Piers Morgan Tonight TV host Jerry Springer drooped a major blow to Pseudo media by asking "Why does everything have to be political?" to speak out on behalf of an idea that our class has held onto so dearly the Pseudo media attacks on politicians.

We have encountered the distinction between pseudo media and the information that is seen as an indicator of the media fulfilling their role as the link between the government and the people which they govern.

The major concerns between these two types of information is that this pseudo media obstructs the flow of legitimately important information which serves the public.

Now since this is the case the media is currently failing to fulfill its role as America's 'Watch Dog' on government by constantly airing Pseudo media such as the number of Newt Gingrich's ex-wives or the project number of future Newt Gingrich's wives come next election cycle.(I'm kidding but you get the point; theres alot out there.)

This Pseudo media is taking over the spotlight from the important questions which the public should be concentrated on, because in the end what the media's role comes down to is what we as a public will converse about. And it is only when the appropriate information is broadcast that we as a public become involved in the conversation known as the nation.

http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheLarryKing/2769528

True Political Analysis

After watching CNN's Florida Primary coverage last night, I came to understand what makes true political analysis.

First, you must stretch out the simple result (Romney won because he has the most money, the support of party elites and a sizeable proportion of the Republican electorate thinks he is the best person to challenge Obama) over the course of 4-5 hours.

Next, you need the best gosh-darned news team on television that apparently must be comprised of

1. Four political operatives (two Democrats and two Republicans) at the same desk, and whose only job is to spin every piece of information to favor his or her party and to discredit the other party. Giving voice to hacks from both parties is apparently the best way to provided high quality information to the public. It is, after all, fair and balanced.

2. Two partisan pundits on site to further provide partisan spin, because partisan spin at a party in Miami is different than partisan spin in the studio in Atlanta

3. Two "hard news journalists"  to provide to truly objective analysis of the victor's party and the White House response.

4. Two real "analysts" (who based on my observations last night have never read a word of political science literature on elections) to tell us what this means in the larger picture, and to well sound like real analysts.

And most importantly you must have

a. A 70" touchscreen monitor that you call the "magic wall," because that apparently sounds more interesting than a 70" touchscreen monitor with very cool mapping software.
b. A cube. Yes, that's right. A huge glass cube in the middle of the news room in which a producer with rolled up shirt sleeves (because that means you are working hard) is controlling things and pulling it all together, and finally
c. A quarantine room in which the network's statisticians are locked away analyzing exit polls until they can "make the call" (after a 30 second countdown) of an outcome that has honestly been known since.... well...months ago.

All the while, everyone involved must use the word pivot as often as possible to indicate that Romney will now begin his shift toward the general election, when in fact his focus as the front runner and the inevitable nominee has always been on the general election.