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.