"Pirates Party, Shoot Each Other"

This isn’t the plot of the latest Johnny Depp flick. No, it is something a bit more cuckoo than old Jack Sparrow. The title of this post, "Pirates Party, Shoot Each Other" is the exact title of the link on Fox News' homepage (pictured in the screenshot above). Never mind the fact that the link in question transports readers to the much more ambiguous story, with a much more ambiguous headline, of shots fired in the night that Fox actually reported. Never mind that any reports of deaths are currently unconfirmed, a point made even by the anonymous U.S. government official who claimed the pirates shot three of their own. Never mind the fact that the pirates themselves said the shots were fired to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadaan.

The front page title remains: "Pirates Party, Shoot Each Other."

It isn't uncommon or surprising for Fox, or any other cog in the 24 hour mega-news machine, to distort the facts of a story so that they make for "better" news. However, it is much less common to find an example as blatant as this one, wherein the story's front-page link has a title which is called into question immediately upon reading the story. I am not saying that I think the pirates definitely did not shoot each other, but the facts of this story show that it is at unclear whether they did or did not. One thing is clear however, this story is presented in a way that makes factually unsubstantiated assumptions about what happened.

The unethical treatment of this story is not limited to the title it was given on Fox's homepage. While the anonymous government official is quoted in the lede of the story, the pirates are not quoted until the fifth graf. So not only did Fox decide that the statement of a government source was significantly more important than the contrary, and first hand, account of the pirates, they gave primacy to an anonymous source over a verifiable source. The link's title also misleads the target audience through the word "party." The use of pirates on party in the same sentence instantly conjures images of rum soaked debauchery and violence, but Eid is a religious holiday and drinking alcohol in excess is forbidden in many interpretations of the Koran.

It may seem excessive to harp on the minutia of this story, but these issues represent a widespread, and dangerous, trend in news media. Fox has to compete nationally with other news outlets, all of which are running the exact same stories. The only way for Fox, or any other 24 hour news operation, to compete is to amp up the drama. Consumers are more drawn to a story with a body count, so that is what Fox offered up in the link's title. It is a shame that journalism is no longer about reporting the truth exclusively and unconditionally. It seems that in 2008 if it isn't sexy -- it isn't news. Today's most popular journalists seem uninterested in dealing with the blatant erosion of journalism's core principles, so I hope the next generation, my generation, of journalists is more concerned with the ethical implications of their work. Otherwise, it seems I am going to have to change my major to creative writing if I want to get a job as a journalist.

Stories with Holes

In the last several days, the Wall Street financial crisis has gone from bad to worse, and it has become apparent that economic interests must start to take precedence over the state of the election polls.

Both the Bush administration and the presidential hopefuls sort through numbers and talk about borrowing foreign dollars, but what no one talks about or attempts to explain is the true effect that the economy crisis will have on the average American. Rather than stating solid facts, they rely on predictable, age-old statements. The Democrats criticize the Republicans for borrowing a quick fix, claiming that the Democratic party would rather fold in on itself than raise the taxes of the individuals. The Republicans criticize the Democrats for not discussing and sticking to a clear economical plan. 

According to cnn.com, McCain announced today that he is taking a break from the campaign trail in an effort to aid in economic relief efforts. However, the story, as well as the site in general, lacks specific details about the possible consequences of the situation. Our media devotes a great deal space to pondering the sexual orientations of our celebrities, yet invests no visible time or space to explaining the complicated entanglement of our country's financial problems to the less-invested, "average" citizen.

The media has failed in its comprehensive coverage of the country's current financial situation. Until Americans are given a clearer picture of U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's 700 billion dollar bailout plan, until the plummet of the value of the dollar is explained in more detail, and until the ordinary citizen is given more information about how these economic recovery strategies will affect their taxes, travel plans, and everyday life, the "average American" will remain just that: an uninformed citizen who is ill prepared to make a decision in November.

Tasteless Bull Crap Featuring "Black John McCain"

If you ever wondered whether television makes you dumber, this clip from CNN should answer that question unequivocally.

So here is the premise, the African American man who was the drummer in The Toasters is named John McCain. "Who cares?" you may be saying to yourself, but here is the kicker -- he is voting for Barack Obama!

The drama and newsworthiness is almost overwhelming. It was so relevant and insightful that CNN.com even linked it above the metaphorical fold on their front page.

I think the worst part about this piece is that it actually glosses over a real story about a news anchor in Maine who is being harassed by viewers because she looks too much like Sarah Palin. Though this is only slightly worse than when the reporter tries to get "Black John McCain" to put on a mask of White John McCain. He refuses, obviously, so she puts it on herself and gawks at the camera like a big-headed wrinkly ghost made of latex condoms. Note: this isn't a comment about how John McCain looks; it is a comment on how his hollow rubber effigy looks on a newswoman.

I'm not sure yet whether this is most offensive to me as a journalist, an American or a human being, maybe I'll update this post when I do decide. On the other hand, I can actually feel myself getting dumber with every second that I waste thinking about it -- so maybe I'll just let it die.

The Man Destined to Fail

Up until this point all of my posts have been tied directly to a specific news article or event; I feel that it is now time for a change of pace.

With the presidential election just over a month away, both candidates have ramped up the efforts of their private muckrakers and begun saturating the airwaves with an unprecedented amount of advertising. This, combined with he recent string of life altering events on the national stage (the credit crisis, hurricane Ike, renewed violence in Afghanistan), has led me to form a hypothesis:

The next President will be inevitably be, at best, a disappointment. They will go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson; their terms in office will be marked by comments about difficult and ultimately unsuccessful battles against nigh unsolvable problems. At worst, and this seems increasingly likely given the recent unscrupulous ads put out by the McCain campaign, they will be framed as total failures and four years from now Americans will vote for a get-the-job-done-no-matter-what-the-cost politician(see Nixon, Tyler).

Part of the reason I think this is an increasingly likely scenario is the unnaturally high expectations that voters have for their candidates this election cycle. Americans have put the next president in a position where he'll have to solve several problems, which have been stewing for nearly a decade, in just four years. The chance of success is very slim and the the margin for error is even slimmer. However, the primary reason for my prediction involves the death, in the media and in the perception of Americans, of truth. The media and politicians constantly bombard the American public with contradictory claims about the issues of this election. For example, if I ask a conservative pundit about Sarah Palin's involvement in the dubious "Bridge to Nowhere" I will likely hear that she stopped it. However if I ask a liberal pundit, I am likely to hear that not only did Palin not stop the project, she was complicit in it. What is more, both of these pundits would present their views on the issue as facts. Thus, the audience members of these pundits will be at an impasse if they try to have a dialog about Palin with a person from the opposing party. Both people will believe they have irrefutable evidence that they are correct. This sort of situation arises constantly in today's media saturated society and it has led to a situation in which the truth is simply what people choose to believe. Because of this the next president will seem to be a savior to the Americans who voted for him, and a grave mistake to those who didn't.
Every decision he makes will be followed by a flurry of propaganda from the opposition, and another "factual" impasse will be created.

I don't think this will be the end of the American Experiment, new web 2.0 technologies seem to be a budding solution to this problem, but I would be very surprised if the next few presidents ever have an approval rating that tops 55%.

Early Birds Not Leaving Much Time

Within the last few elections, campaigns have seen a number of changes. The rise of the internet and faster communication devices has made tracking the polls easier than it has ever been. Candidates have been able to transmit their respective platforms and views across a wider range of voters in a quicker time period. There are now many more ways to cast one's vote than waiting in line at the polling place on the day of the election. However, with diversified voting methods come newfound challenges for the campaigns.

According to Time.com, yesterday was the first day that Virginia voters can cast their ballots at early polling sites located around the state. They will not be alone; between now and the election all but 14 of the 50 states will allow early voting at specialized voting places. In addition, any registered voter can cast their ballot absentee, as long as they complete the proper paperwork. Convenient as this may be for college students and those voters unable to avoid work on November 4, increasing leniency on election regulations puts a crunch on the usually crucial last month of campaigning. 

61% of eligible Americans voted in the 2004 election, according to thewashintonpost.com. While this was the highest voter turnout that the country has seen since 1968, that still leaves out two-fifths of the population. With hopes of stimulating interest and activity at the polling booth, states have made the registration process almost effortless, most notably by no longer pinning down an absolute election day.

Because of the time discrepancy caused by the 47 day polling window, the 2008 election will leave something to be desired in terms of accuracy. In a political climate where sensationalistic attack ads can change the course of a campaign in a matter of hours, September's hot topics will no longer be November's news. The voters that show up at the polls on "election day," will perhaps be making their decision based on different information.

After an especially long and arduous primary season that posed the same questions in regards to timing and accuracy, it's clear that no one has learned the lesson.

Fiorina calls SNL impersonation of Palin 'sexist'

Carly Fiorina, a spokesperson for John McCain's presidential campaign, told MSNBC that she felt Tina Fey's portrayal of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live was "sexist."

Without even delving into the fact that Tina Fey is widely suspected to be a major supporter of Senator Hilary Clinton, played on SNL by Amy Poehler, the entire purpose of the sketch was to point out that attacking Palin's credentials is not sexist. It is in fact a reasonable thing for citizens to do, and a responsibility for the media. The only joke that even bordered on sexist was a crack about Palin's "Tina Fey glasses," which was clearly a joke aimed at the striking resemblance between Fey and Palin. Palin herself has made mention of her resemblance to Fey.

However, all of this is secondary to the fact that Saturday Night Live has run some of the most glass-ceiling-shattering sketches in its history this year. First there was the classic sketch in which Clinton debates Senator Barack Obama (NBC does not currently have this sketch available online). The moderator grills Clinton and then asks Obama, "Can we get you anything?" Then Tina Fey made a triumphant return to SNL's Weekend Update with the famous/infamous "bitch is the new black" segment. Fey rips the mainstream media a new one over what she saw as the sexist mistreatment of Hilary Clinton's campaign.

Fey has risen to the top of a field which is dominated by men, and she has done it in an uncompromising way, because she is one of the most talented comic writers in television. If Tina Fey has it in for Sarah Palin it certainly isn't because Fey is sexist. Just the opposite, Fey's point is that an inexperienced and seemingly unqualified woman being tapped for the Vice Presidency is as sexist as a qualified woman being denied the position.

Gender reconciliation, like racial reconciliation, is not a competition in which certain benchmarks must be met at all costs. It is a march towards equality, and the means are as important as the ends. If Sarah Palin becomes Vice President, it will not make life any easier for Jane Doe who makes 30% less money than her male co-workers. The inauguration of a female VP is just an arbitrary benchmark unless it is perceived that the woman in question earned the position.

The SNL sketch in question is a nuanced criticism of the media, and its fear of being perceived as sexist, and the McCain camp, which seems to believe that American women cannot see the differences between Palin and Clinton.

Ad-ing Something Else

One month ago, Gannett Co. Inc announced its intention to downsize by roughly 1,000 workers nationwide, (according to The Huffington Post) due to low profits and difficulties with advertising sales. With its status as the biggest nationwide newspaper company, the decline in advertising and funding is disturbing not only from a large-scale, economical standpoint, but also from the perspective of a print media consumer, as a lack of advertising represents a serious plummet in interest and readership. Although this is not an immediate cause for alarm, (journalism exists in a number of medias and forms that are experiencing success) it is important to realize that the advertising business is perhaps headed for the most dramatic shift that the industry has ever weathered.

The media has been creative in their ability to find new ways to generate interest in advertising for the new mediums that have emerged in the last several years. Online video clips that include a preliminary commercial, scrolling margins that advertise specialized products, and corner links at the bottom of almost every webpage have all contributed to the funding and success of journalism in its most recent media. However, this will not prove to be enough in the coming years. As much as many would like to believe that journalism is free of the chains of political agendas and financial gain, it is a business like any other. There will have to be a more reliable technological way of guaranteeing the support of advertisers. Like the rise of the Internet itself, online journalism has become increasingly hard to monitor and document.The media will be required to find new ways to walk the constant tight rope between audience and advertiser satisfaction. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the shift in the relationship between demographic records and digital advertising has hardly begun.

Offshore Drilling Is Coming to a Vote - Democrats to Offer a Mix of Proposals

Offshore drilling is going to be voted on as early as this week in a proposal that would allow states to open the waters 50-100mi off their coasts to oil companies. This is no surprise given high gas prices and the Democratic congress's low approval rating, which is largely due to the political gridlock which has marked the last two years at the capitol. Moderate Democrats, who's constituencies may lack a strong environmentalist base, are apprehensive about November and see this as an issue that can give them a boost. All of this makes the situation seem like a veritable no-brainer for the Democrats, even the Sierra Club approves of the idea. However, there is one small snag in the plan.

Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden almost literally wrote the book, op-ed really, on why offshore drilling is a useless distraction. He brings up a lot of common-sense points which would appeal to exactly the blue-collar crowd the congress members are so worried about losing over this issue. Though they appear to be moot now. I have to wonder why the democratic party never seems willing to press these issues with the public, trying to change long-held views with some honest speech, instead of just conceding when it seems most politically convenient.

Public Forum

Today's headline news stories sound very familiar. Much like the early September coverage of three years ago, hurricane and tropical storm reports seem to capture America's interest and sympathies as yet another natural disaster turns a Gulf city into a hotbed of evacuations and damage. While the now downgraded Tropical Storm Ike doesn't top the havoc that Katrina caused, the featured pictures and "up to the minute" reports bring back memories of the devastation and political controversy that the earlier hurricane caused.

Ike may be a slightly smaller storm, but when compared to Katrina, it's important to take into account what we've learned. In the weeks, months, and years that have followed the storm that hit New Orleans and threw Lousiana's name into the news, there's been a lot of change. Not only has the government changed its habits when it comes to rescue and relief efforts, the media has opened the situation to the public.

On foxnews.com, nearly half of the links to information about Ike include ways for readers to submit their own input, photos, and opinions about the disaster. One link boasts of up-to-the-minute blog posts from those inside the eye of the storm. Others ask viewers to submit photos or participate in a "live chat" about the current situation. Look anywhere. You're bound to find an opportunity to express your personal views.

For better or worse, this is the way that the media is going. The reporters are no longer a one-way channel of information and ideas, the link to what everyone wants to know. It's everybody's  job now. On one hand, it makes us all a little more globally connected. On the other hand, it opens the door wide for falsehoods and propaganda to be broadcast to the masses. 

Some look at this as a stumbling block, as a threat to the accuracy that we, as journalists, try to perpetuate on a day-to-day basis. But the way I see it, it's the philosophy for which we have always strived. Part of the media's responsibility is to provide a public forum. Now, the feedback is pouring in tenfold.

"Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan" - NY Times

It was made known yesterday that United States military special forces, under the leadership of the CIA, conducted a cross border raid into Pakistan from Afghanistan. In doing so the United States government has compromised the sovereignty of an allied nation.

Pakistan's General Ashfaq Kayani put his comments on the matter in no uncertain terms, saying Pakistan would defend its sovereignty "at all cost."

It is known that Pakistan's border Western border is a base of operations for groups of militants who are destabilizing both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, however this raid could easily have ignited a firestorm across the region. It will almost certainly be a propaganda victory for insurgent groups, who paint the US as totalitarian world police. Furthermore the United States and the "war on terror" are not even seen favorably by the Pakistani people. The previous President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf was heavily criticized for being a "lapdog" of the United States.

Prof. Altaf Ullah Khan, a Pakistani journalist, sums up the sentiments of the Pakistani people. "These are attacks on militants," said Khan, "but these are also Pakistanis." Khan admits that the militant groups are beyond the control of the Pakistani military, but asserts that aid from and outside force will only make the situation worse. That is not surprising given the recent turmoil within the Pakistani government, which has recently endured the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the forced resignation of Musharraf (video). The situation bodes especially badly for the new President, Asif Ali Zardari (video), who is now faced with a choice between defying the United States or looking like another "lapdog" President.

Given the history of the current administration, in terms of assuming power to conduct military operations, this situation is not surprising. However, it poses a serious problem for the United States when the situation with Russia and Georgia is taken into consideration. Both situations involve the government of a sovereign democratic nation, thrown into turmoil by dissenting factions and an air of militant revolt. In both of these cases a global power, and permanent UN Security Council member, interceding to unilaterally make sure its political interests are served. This two-faced foreign policy makes it difficult for the United States to take a "Today, we're all Georgians" stance against Russia.

Double Trouble

 Through serious battles with Congress, including anti-wildlife protection bills that earned her the nickname "the killa from Wasilla," Sarah Palin has made her point clear: we humans have the right to exclusively dictate what happens to our environment. However, her stance on accountability may have left something to be desired. In an interview with NewsMax on the subject of global warming, she stated that she's "not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." Maybe if Gov. Palin would have left it there, her stance could be understood.

Today Ms. Palin had an interview with Nightline's Charlie Gibson, in which she admitted that "man's activities certainly 'can be' contributing to the issue of global warming; climate change."

Hey, it's been a hectic two weeks. It must be tough to watch your 17 year old daughter's pregancy gossip play out on national television. And all this talk of a nepotism scandal is certainly not doing wonders for your reputation of a trusted public official. But that is an awfully quick change in opinion. 

Either Sen. McCain has won over his running mate's environmental issue "support" very quickly, or the Republicans just aren't circling the wagons.