Dennis Kucinich is seeing UFOs.
I really don't have anything else to follow that up.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Dave's Book Club-October 31st Edition
Interruption marketing will fail. A new kind of marketing is needed to succeed in today’s technologically-equipped environment. That is the basic premise of Unleashing the Ideavirus, written by Seth Godin in 2000.
Interruption marketing is what we have come to think of as advertising—television commercials, radio spots, etc. But these standards of advertising are no longer applicable. Instead, advertisers need to adopt a viral marketing-like strategy in order to get in the heads of consumers. This is necessary because ideas have become the newest form of currency in markets where goods and services used to rule. Here is where the ideavirus comes in. The ideavirus, as Godin says, is an idea that grows and effects everyone it touches (whether they want it or not). Ideaviruses appear to be accidents, but in reality are viral marketing campaigns that plant seed ideas in consumers. This form of marketing can be achieved by word-of-mouth promotion (although Godin calls it mouse-of-word as he argues the click of a mouse has a further reach than person to person communications), ‘sneezers’ or people with credible standing in society and groups who go out and promote something (Godin says that bribing these people is ok) , persistence, and the aid of an amplifier (kind of a guerrilla marketing technique). Current examples of this ideavirus can be seen with how Google distributed accounts for gmail originally (in which you initially had to be invited to get an account) and also best-seller book lists like the NY Times has.
Maybe it is because this work was written 7 years ago, but I don’t think any of these ideas are new. I think they are based off longstanding marketing principles that have been slightly modified with the technological and social advances (like You Tube and Facebook). Essentially, I feel that Godin's arguments encompassing the same ideas that have been commonplace in marketing for a long time, just with his take on them. Take for example the Beatles and their arrival in the United States. When the Beatles first came to the United States, they were a sensation even before they landed. There had been promotion of the Beatles through traditional advertising like radio airplay, word-of-mouth advertising, media gigs (Ed Sullivan Show for example), stickers--they were already everywhere before they arrived. It was a media blitz, along the same lines as Godin describes.
As for a new sink or swim necessity in expanding past traditional advertising, here is where I agree with Godin. In recent years, we have definitely seen it become harder and harder for advertisers to reach consumers. Products like TiVo and pop-up blockers have seen to this. However, I do not agree with Godin in his explanation that advertisers will fail considerably if they do not completely adapt to the new technological environment. When television first started, there were no commercials, just product placement and program sponsors. Then commercials became popular and product placement within the television show took a backseat. Now we are seeing a return to product placement in programs, which cost advertisers millions of dollars (which they would not spend if their advertising was not working). The new forms of advertising that Godin discusses are not revolutionary, just extensions and evolutions of previous forms.
Interruption marketing is what we have come to think of as advertising—television commercials, radio spots, etc. But these standards of advertising are no longer applicable. Instead, advertisers need to adopt a viral marketing-like strategy in order to get in the heads of consumers. This is necessary because ideas have become the newest form of currency in markets where goods and services used to rule. Here is where the ideavirus comes in. The ideavirus, as Godin says, is an idea that grows and effects everyone it touches (whether they want it or not). Ideaviruses appear to be accidents, but in reality are viral marketing campaigns that plant seed ideas in consumers. This form of marketing can be achieved by word-of-mouth promotion (although Godin calls it mouse-of-word as he argues the click of a mouse has a further reach than person to person communications), ‘sneezers’ or people with credible standing in society and groups who go out and promote something (Godin says that bribing these people is ok) , persistence, and the aid of an amplifier (kind of a guerrilla marketing technique). Current examples of this ideavirus can be seen with how Google distributed accounts for gmail originally (in which you initially had to be invited to get an account) and also best-seller book lists like the NY Times has.
Maybe it is because this work was written 7 years ago, but I don’t think any of these ideas are new. I think they are based off longstanding marketing principles that have been slightly modified with the technological and social advances (like You Tube and Facebook). Essentially, I feel that Godin's arguments encompassing the same ideas that have been commonplace in marketing for a long time, just with his take on them. Take for example the Beatles and their arrival in the United States. When the Beatles first came to the United States, they were a sensation even before they landed. There had been promotion of the Beatles through traditional advertising like radio airplay, word-of-mouth advertising, media gigs (Ed Sullivan Show for example), stickers--they were already everywhere before they arrived. It was a media blitz, along the same lines as Godin describes.
As for a new sink or swim necessity in expanding past traditional advertising, here is where I agree with Godin. In recent years, we have definitely seen it become harder and harder for advertisers to reach consumers. Products like TiVo and pop-up blockers have seen to this. However, I do not agree with Godin in his explanation that advertisers will fail considerably if they do not completely adapt to the new technological environment. When television first started, there were no commercials, just product placement and program sponsors. Then commercials became popular and product placement within the television show took a backseat. Now we are seeing a return to product placement in programs, which cost advertisers millions of dollars (which they would not spend if their advertising was not working). The new forms of advertising that Godin discusses are not revolutionary, just extensions and evolutions of previous forms.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Colbert/Edwards Feud: Round 1
CNN's Political Ticker has the story.
Key jab:
"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," [Edwards spokesperson Teresa] Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."
Thems fightin' words
Key jab:
"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," [Edwards spokesperson Teresa] Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."
Thems fightin' words
Sunday, October 28, 2007
'The evangelical crackup'
Here's the story by David Kirkpatrick from the New York Times, via MSNBC. It's a pretty interesting piece about the direction (or evolution as some might say) of the Evangelical movement and their political involvement in the US since the 2004 elections. Warning: it's a long piece.
What's really interesting is how much things have changed since the 2004 elections politically. As Kirkpatrick mentions:
"Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to one."
And now:
"The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations."
I think one of the important issues to come out of the article (other than the potential fracturing of the Evangelical movement in modern politics) is the issue of complacency with bloc politics. I believe candidates from both parties need to continually seek support from their primary voting blocs regardless of how safe they appear to be. No voting bloc should ever be deemed as a lock. When they appear safe, there is a great potential for them to be taken advantage of and potentially lost.
Another interesting point that comes out of the piece is that in the Evangelical community, while abortion and gay-marriage are still important issues for them, subjects like the environment, global warming, and poverty are becoming more and more prominent in political discussions.
Like I said, it's a long read, but pretty interesting nonetheless.
What's really interesting is how much things have changed since the 2004 elections politically. As Kirkpatrick mentions:
"Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to one."
And now:
"The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations."
I think one of the important issues to come out of the article (other than the potential fracturing of the Evangelical movement in modern politics) is the issue of complacency with bloc politics. I believe candidates from both parties need to continually seek support from their primary voting blocs regardless of how safe they appear to be. No voting bloc should ever be deemed as a lock. When they appear safe, there is a great potential for them to be taken advantage of and potentially lost.
Another interesting point that comes out of the piece is that in the Evangelical community, while abortion and gay-marriage are still important issues for them, subjects like the environment, global warming, and poverty are becoming more and more prominent in political discussions.
Like I said, it's a long read, but pretty interesting nonetheless.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Colbert-in-Chief
It's been about a week now since Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy for President (starting in South Carolina) and since then, he's made the rounds of the political news programs. While this may or may not be a publicity stunt, I am truly excited.
For one, as some have pointed out, just his mere presence could change the way the media analyzes and dissects the candidates. Colbert has a lot of gumption, enough to be able to call the media out when they get complacent with the candidates (and their pre-rehearsed soundbites) or don't call them out when they need to be called out.
Additionally, Colbert has a platform none of the candidates have. This, in my mind means two big things: 1). he has the ability to talk about issues no one is talking about and talk to people for more than 5 second sound bites; and 2). he can challenge the existing campaign finance laws (candidate air time aspects in particular) that need to be revamped. He'll have a pulpit like none other to raise money (if he so chooses) and talk to the masses, which might conflict with some current financing laws.
The youth vote should mean a lot more politicians. Politicians rarely, if ever, respond to our needs and issues that are important to us (although one could make the circular argument that politicians don't seek our vote because we don't vote in strong enough blocks). However, we are a substantial portion of the Colbert Reports audience. Like any good politicians, I think Colbert will use his time to speak mostly to his biggest audience, even if it is in a sarcastic tone. Also, by Colbert's mere presence in the race, I think it gives a new energy and voice to America's youth and hopefully a renewed passion in engaging in the political process.
Finally, and I think most importantly, the longer Colbert stays in the race the more everyone has to stay honest. Politicians will not be able to take voters for granted, media coverages of politicians will have to change, and the candidates will have to piece together honest answers instead of the polished and honed canned answers they've been doling out.
Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but I really hope that at least, Stephen Colbert's presence in the 2008 presidential race will raise the level of debate in this country.
For one, as some have pointed out, just his mere presence could change the way the media analyzes and dissects the candidates. Colbert has a lot of gumption, enough to be able to call the media out when they get complacent with the candidates (and their pre-rehearsed soundbites) or don't call them out when they need to be called out.
Additionally, Colbert has a platform none of the candidates have. This, in my mind means two big things: 1). he has the ability to talk about issues no one is talking about and talk to people for more than 5 second sound bites; and 2). he can challenge the existing campaign finance laws (candidate air time aspects in particular) that need to be revamped. He'll have a pulpit like none other to raise money (if he so chooses) and talk to the masses, which might conflict with some current financing laws.
The youth vote should mean a lot more politicians. Politicians rarely, if ever, respond to our needs and issues that are important to us (although one could make the circular argument that politicians don't seek our vote because we don't vote in strong enough blocks). However, we are a substantial portion of the Colbert Reports audience. Like any good politicians, I think Colbert will use his time to speak mostly to his biggest audience, even if it is in a sarcastic tone. Also, by Colbert's mere presence in the race, I think it gives a new energy and voice to America's youth and hopefully a renewed passion in engaging in the political process.
Finally, and I think most importantly, the longer Colbert stays in the race the more everyone has to stay honest. Politicians will not be able to take voters for granted, media coverages of politicians will have to change, and the candidates will have to piece together honest answers instead of the polished and honed canned answers they've been doling out.
Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but I really hope that at least, Stephen Colbert's presence in the 2008 presidential race will raise the level of debate in this country.
Now I know why Dumbledore wore purple
This past weekend, news broke that Professor Dumbledore, of Harry Potter fame, was outed by author J.K. Rowling. And the internets went wild.
Why, you may be asking yourself is this news on a political blog?
As ABC News reports, there are a number of people (most likely against the books from the start) who felt that Dumbledore's outing was some sort of political statement by Rowling and was further proof of 'an anti-Christian agenda.'
Really?!
Really?!
Here's where I take issues with these people. First, if Dumbledore is gay, good for him. Nothing wrong with that. But Rowling's outing of him is not a political statement, per se. If she wanted to make it a political statement about homosexuality she would have made it more explicit. Or, with the pulpit she has, if she were making a statement about gay rights we would have heard about it years ago. No, her statement is part of the over all issue of tolerance for everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, magical ability, preference in ice cream flavor, etc.
Another area I take issue with is the notion that this is 'anti-Christian.' MTV had a piece recently about how much Christian imagery is actually in the book.
Sometimes I think people have too much time on their hands
Why, you may be asking yourself is this news on a political blog?
As ABC News reports, there are a number of people (most likely against the books from the start) who felt that Dumbledore's outing was some sort of political statement by Rowling and was further proof of 'an anti-Christian agenda.'
Really?!
Really?!
Here's where I take issues with these people. First, if Dumbledore is gay, good for him. Nothing wrong with that. But Rowling's outing of him is not a political statement, per se. If she wanted to make it a political statement about homosexuality she would have made it more explicit. Or, with the pulpit she has, if she were making a statement about gay rights we would have heard about it years ago. No, her statement is part of the over all issue of tolerance for everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, magical ability, preference in ice cream flavor, etc.
Another area I take issue with is the notion that this is 'anti-Christian.' MTV had a piece recently about how much Christian imagery is actually in the book.
Sometimes I think people have too much time on their hands
Republican trying to spread rumors: Rudy and Hillary sitting in a tree
CNN has the story
If I'm a Republican voter (which I'm not, we're thinking in hypotheticals here) am I more concerned about Hillary Clinton becoming president or determining which candidate in my own party is the best candidate for the job? Why do these candidates think it is more important to attack Hillary Clinton and distance themselves from her and her policies? Shouldn't they be trying to convince Republican voters of their own credentials and why they would be the better candidate, not the better one to oppose Hillary in a general election?
Maybe this is my problem with politics--across both isles--being that no one really touts their own abilities and genuine ideas (or actually debates, but that is a topic for another post), but instead tend to just bashes the other politicians and think about who they would be able to beat before they even lock up a nomination.
If I'm a Republican voter (which I'm not, we're thinking in hypotheticals here) am I more concerned about Hillary Clinton becoming president or determining which candidate in my own party is the best candidate for the job? Why do these candidates think it is more important to attack Hillary Clinton and distance themselves from her and her policies? Shouldn't they be trying to convince Republican voters of their own credentials and why they would be the better candidate, not the better one to oppose Hillary in a general election?
Maybe this is my problem with politics--across both isles--being that no one really touts their own abilities and genuine ideas (or actually debates, but that is a topic for another post), but instead tend to just bashes the other politicians and think about who they would be able to beat before they even lock up a nomination.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Sure, why not?
The man behind 'truthiness' has officially entered his hat into the 2008 race. If he does carry out with this, it'll be really interesting if he changes any part of the process and the way politicians talk to voters.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Really!?
According to Lynne Cheney, Dick has a relative in Washington, DC...Sen. Barack Obama.
I better get on factcheck.com and check this out.
The link possibly goes back about 8 generations ago, but regardless, officially mark that as the what the fuck moment of the week.
I better get on factcheck.com and check this out.
The link possibly goes back about 8 generations ago, but regardless, officially mark that as the what the fuck moment of the week.
the cluetrain manifesto
(A full online text can be found here)
For this week’s reading, we were asked to read, the cluetrain manifesto by Levine, Locke, Searls and Weinberger. To be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan. While there were some interesting parts regarding the impact on businesses, the numerous author approach hampered the development of their point and seemed to disjoint the overall narrative.
Some of the authors, especially Christopher Locke seems to be snobbish and look down at all those people who didn’t think of the internet as much of a big deal when it first began to show its uses as dialogue mediums between colleges and for the military. While he says that the first use of the internet was for unadulterated speech, he elicits a demeaning tone to those who, unlike him, may have been late adapters to the internet. One of those late comers he talks about are major corporations. Corporations he iterates, treat people as idiots when in fact they are the true idiots. He also says that with the advent of the internet, markets and commerce were blind-sided by the popularity and importance of its networks of people and cultures. The true spirit of the internet, he concludes, is the “underbelly of the web”—the sites that are user-run and free of corporate interference.
David Weinberger and Rick Levine look at the internet as a resource that has redefined our society. The web, Weinberger says, is an excellent medium and perpetuator of dialogue. Whether it is creating a discussion between communities, perpetuating ideas or as a resource for collecting information. Because of this, the web has become ingrained and essential into all parts of our life. Additionally, the way business is conducted has also been vastly and permanently changed thanks to the web. Email in particular is seen as a device that has drastically changed how businesses and corporations communicate and how news is passed around. At first, business and markets were reluctant to take commerce to the internet.
At the heart of the arguments made in the cluetrain manifesto is that the development of the internet has truly reshaped our society. It has completely changed the way we as a society conduct business, created dialogues and shared information and news. The internet, the authors conclude, should also be open to all and free from restraint (especially corporate restraint)—a utopian society.
The cluetrain manifesto was written roughly 8 years ago and in that time a lot has changed, from business on the internet to marketing, to how communication is conducted. Maybe it is because of the difference in time that I came away underwhelmed by the ‘manifesto.’
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Why we need embryonic stem cell research, Part I
The issue of embryonic stem cell research has always been pretty big for me. I find it so hard to fathom how people could turn their backs on a science that with a little more development and study has the potential to help those afflicted with numerous diseases and conditions. I understand the political, ethical and scientific dilemmas (which I will go into in later posts) that encompass embryonic stem cell research. Regardless, there are so many ways these cells can be used to heal people.
For those who do not know much about embryonic research or need a refresher, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has set up a helpful website here. They also do a nice job of setting up the necessity for embryonic stem cell research:
“Why are embryonic stem cells important?
Embryonic stem cells are of great interest to medicine and science because of their ability to develop into virtually any other cell made by the human body. In theory, if stem cells can be grown and their development directed in culture, it would be possible to grow cells of medical importance such as bone marrow, neural tissue or muscle.”
According to the National Institutes of Health, stem cells have the potential of helping people suffering from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Just looking at the first four listed, that’s 5 million Alzheimer’s suffers, 1.5 million for Parkinson’s, 250,000 people suffering from SPIs and 20.8 million people suffering from diabetes. Added all together and you get more than 27.5 million Americans suffering from four conditions. For some perspective, if you were to added up the populations of the states who still have baseball teams in the playoffs (Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and Ohio) you get a number--28.8 million--a little more than a million more to that of people suffering from these four.
Those opposed to embryonic stem cells turn to adult stem cells as an alternative. Adult stem cells however are very limited in their uses. Earlier this year we heard that new technologies would allow scientists to take stem cells from unfertilized eggs. But, as mentioned by the Center for American Progress, that new research is as not hopeful as it would appear. "This breakthrough technology has great potential, but also some serious limitations that make it not viable as a replacement for embryonic stem cell research."
I've tried to set up the urgency of research for embryonic stem cells. Later this week I will post Part B where I will go into the ethical and political arguments for both sides. Who will win? Who will lose? You’ll have to wait until the follow-up for those answers...and more (see, I too can write in a Dan Brown-esq way).
For those who do not know much about embryonic research or need a refresher, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has set up a helpful website here. They also do a nice job of setting up the necessity for embryonic stem cell research:
“Why are embryonic stem cells important?
Embryonic stem cells are of great interest to medicine and science because of their ability to develop into virtually any other cell made by the human body. In theory, if stem cells can be grown and their development directed in culture, it would be possible to grow cells of medical importance such as bone marrow, neural tissue or muscle.”
According to the National Institutes of Health, stem cells have the potential of helping people suffering from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Just looking at the first four listed, that’s 5 million Alzheimer’s suffers, 1.5 million for Parkinson’s, 250,000 people suffering from SPIs and 20.8 million people suffering from diabetes. Added all together and you get more than 27.5 million Americans suffering from four conditions. For some perspective, if you were to added up the populations of the states who still have baseball teams in the playoffs (Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and Ohio) you get a number--28.8 million--a little more than a million more to that of people suffering from these four.
Those opposed to embryonic stem cells turn to adult stem cells as an alternative. Adult stem cells however are very limited in their uses. Earlier this year we heard that new technologies would allow scientists to take stem cells from unfertilized eggs. But, as mentioned by the Center for American Progress, that new research is as not hopeful as it would appear. "This breakthrough technology has great potential, but also some serious limitations that make it not viable as a replacement for embryonic stem cell research."
I've tried to set up the urgency of research for embryonic stem cells. Later this week I will post Part B where I will go into the ethical and political arguments for both sides. Who will win? Who will lose? You’ll have to wait until the follow-up for those answers...and more (see, I too can write in a Dan Brown-esq way).
Friday, October 12, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
We've come a long way, baby!
Aside from being the former crime capital of the country and every-now-and-again having crime emergencies, DC came out on top of a couple different lists of America's Favorite Cities.
Here's where we're tops:
PEOPLE
Here's where we're tops:
CULTURE
Museum and galleries
1. Washington
2. New York
3. Chicago, Illinois
PEOPLE
Worldly
1. Washington
2. San Francisco
3. New York
User-developed 'political' ad
We were asked for an assignment to find an example of a user-developed political ad. This one got my attention as well as some publicity a few months back so I figured it would be a good example. In the video "Obama's Girl" and "Giuliani's Girl" duke it out to see who is the better political candidate and potential president. Personally I think Obama's Girl won in a knockout.
Since this is for class I must post a warning: Gratuitous pillow-fighting is involved
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Fred Thompson Hits The Applause Button
This video has been going around the internets for the past couple of days. It was too good not to put it up
Sen. 'Wide Stance' to stay in Senate
Here's the story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/craig.staying/index.html
After the scandal, Sen. Craig said he would step down from his office as of Sept. 30. It's now Oct. 7 and he's still in office and now he says he's not resigning. Most Senate Republicans are pretty pissed (pardon my French) that he hasn't resigned.
So why are so many Republicans upset that the three-term Senator has yet to resign? Is it because he solicited gay sex from an undercover cop in a public airport bathroom? No. Is it because he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge nearly a month after being charged and then tried to change his guilty plea only to have it denied by a judge? No. Is it because he may be gay (although he won't admit it) yet votes and speaks out against gay issues? Maybe. Why then, you may be asking yourself...It's because it hurts Republicans chances of regaining the Senate in 2008.
The Senator has already announced that he has no plans to run again in 2008, when his term is up. If he were to stay in the Senate until the end of his term that poses a couple problems for the Republican candidate running in his place. For one, they have to run with the Senator's story still around. If he were to resign, the 2008 candidate would be appointed to the Senate and have a year in office to bolster support and get their name and record established before the election. With the Senator still in office, all they can do is declare their candidacy and run when the time comes.
Another problem this means for the Republican candidate is that they have to completely distance themselves from the Senator, which is easier said than done. Not only will they be running in the election in the Senator's shadow, but you've got to believe their fund-raising abilities will be hampered as well.
Idaho is a conservative-leaning state. Both senators are Republicans and their governor is a Republican. When the Senator runs on very conservative principles and then gets caught for 'supposedly' trying to illicit sex in a public bathroom from a male police officer, it could be seen by some as hypocrisy. That in turn brings a cloud over the next election, dictating the debate and making it difficult, if you are the Republican candidate, to get your message out there. It also might discourage some voters from voting in the next election out of anger.
After the scandal, Sen. Craig said he would step down from his office as of Sept. 30. It's now Oct. 7 and he's still in office and now he says he's not resigning. Most Senate Republicans are pretty pissed (pardon my French) that he hasn't resigned.
So why are so many Republicans upset that the three-term Senator has yet to resign? Is it because he solicited gay sex from an undercover cop in a public airport bathroom? No. Is it because he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge nearly a month after being charged and then tried to change his guilty plea only to have it denied by a judge? No. Is it because he may be gay (although he won't admit it) yet votes and speaks out against gay issues? Maybe. Why then, you may be asking yourself...It's because it hurts Republicans chances of regaining the Senate in 2008.
The Senator has already announced that he has no plans to run again in 2008, when his term is up. If he were to stay in the Senate until the end of his term that poses a couple problems for the Republican candidate running in his place. For one, they have to run with the Senator's story still around. If he were to resign, the 2008 candidate would be appointed to the Senate and have a year in office to bolster support and get their name and record established before the election. With the Senator still in office, all they can do is declare their candidacy and run when the time comes.
Another problem this means for the Republican candidate is that they have to completely distance themselves from the Senator, which is easier said than done. Not only will they be running in the election in the Senator's shadow, but you've got to believe their fund-raising abilities will be hampered as well.
Idaho is a conservative-leaning state. Both senators are Republicans and their governor is a Republican. When the Senator runs on very conservative principles and then gets caught for 'supposedly' trying to illicit sex in a public bathroom from a male police officer, it could be seen by some as hypocrisy. That in turn brings a cloud over the next election, dictating the debate and making it difficult, if you are the Republican candidate, to get your message out there. It also might discourage some voters from voting in the next election out of anger.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Bush Hearts Environment: Update Numero A
Stephen Colbert did a report last night on his show about Bush's new rhetoric concerning global warming...I mean climate change. Check it out...
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Wow
Hillary Clinton raised $27 million dollars in the last quarter. Barack Obama raised $20 million. John Edwards raised $7 million dollars.
I'm a proponent of campaign finance laws so seeing these numbers really scares me. Between these three individuals, $54 million dollars was raised. And that money will probably be used to run ads online and on television to tell us how the other candidates don't warrant our vote. Why can't we raise this kind of money to help the homeless? Or feed children? Help out those who don't have healthcare afford it? Or help a family see a Hannah Montana concert? You know, real problems of today...
I'm a proponent of campaign finance laws so seeing these numbers really scares me. Between these three individuals, $54 million dollars was raised. And that money will probably be used to run ads online and on television to tell us how the other candidates don't warrant our vote. Why can't we raise this kind of money to help the homeless? Or feed children? Help out those who don't have healthcare afford it? Or help a family see a Hannah Montana concert? You know, real problems of today...
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Dave’s Book Club
For today’s review, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion by Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder
I found this book a pretty interesting read. The premise of the study in the book is that the news we watch on television can have profound impacts on our different judgments. Whether it be on issues facing us or our political leaders, television news media can help (or hurt depending on the way you look at it) in the formation of our perceptions of society. To study this, a number of experiments are conducted to see whether the audience’s perceptions of different events, stories or politicians were affected by the timing of the news story, the delivery (audibly or visually) and/or the source. Overall, the studies conducted found that the news media has a profound impact on the public perception of politics and its players and settings. While the book is dated (copyright 1987) and can't take into account new media sources like the internet, with it’s 24 hour access to news and video, as well as the impact of blogs on news media, Iyengar and Kinder arguments are still, for the most part, valid today. Even some hypothesizes that they tested and were unable to prove can be validated, in my mind, by incorporating today’s technologies and stories into the argument and experiments.
One experiment I found particularly interesting was their attempt to test the “vividness hypothesis,” which formulates that that “agenda-setting is enhanced by stories that illustrate and personalize national problems” (Iyengar, 34). To test this, they tried two different sub-experiments, whereby individual were shown news programs with filtered content (some were shown impersonal stories about national problems and some were shown very personal and emotional stories for example) to see how the tone and presentation of the news would affect the participants perceptions of the story/political actors. They concluded that “vivid cases fail to enhance the influence of the evening news…but rather that, under certain circumstances, vivid cases may actually diminish the capacity of the news to influence the public’s political priorities” (Iyengar, 39).
I found this hard to believe. Any maybe it is because 20 years of technology advances have shaped my perception, but I couldn't believe that visual cues and the tone of a story couldn't affect the perceived out come of a news story (at least not in today's society). The first example that came to mind to counter this conclusion was last year’s big news story about Senator George Allen’s 'comment' at a campaign rally in Virginia. Of course, I am referring to the now infamous “macaca comment.” Here’s where I feel that this example validates the vividness hypothesis. The story when it first happened didn’t make any big splashes in the news media. All the media had to go by was text of his comment, which when shown to viewers wasn’t deemed as anything of note. That was until video of the moment began to pop-up. When the video and news media stories started showing it, it spread around the internets to where millions of people saw Sen. Allen make his comment. Public opinion then began to sway against him in Virginia. That moment and the uproar that it caused, more than anything else in my opinion, was the main source to his eventual election defeat. This in my opinion contradicts the results from the experiment from 20 + years ago because it shows that the visual cues in the story were much more powerful and effective the just the audio or text of the speech as it was presented immediately, and helped change public opinion on the Senator.
To sum it all up, this was an interesting, albeit dated presentation of how the news media effects the public’s perceptions through different elements in their broadcasts. This is the first example I can find of any type of comprehensive study of the media and its affects on public perceptions. I would be truly interested if these authors did a follow up to this study some twenty years later, to see how the many facets of the internet, news on demand and 24 hour news cycles, have changed their previous findings.
Citation for the book:
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. 1987
I found this book a pretty interesting read. The premise of the study in the book is that the news we watch on television can have profound impacts on our different judgments. Whether it be on issues facing us or our political leaders, television news media can help (or hurt depending on the way you look at it) in the formation of our perceptions of society. To study this, a number of experiments are conducted to see whether the audience’s perceptions of different events, stories or politicians were affected by the timing of the news story, the delivery (audibly or visually) and/or the source. Overall, the studies conducted found that the news media has a profound impact on the public perception of politics and its players and settings. While the book is dated (copyright 1987) and can't take into account new media sources like the internet, with it’s 24 hour access to news and video, as well as the impact of blogs on news media, Iyengar and Kinder arguments are still, for the most part, valid today. Even some hypothesizes that they tested and were unable to prove can be validated, in my mind, by incorporating today’s technologies and stories into the argument and experiments.
One experiment I found particularly interesting was their attempt to test the “vividness hypothesis,” which formulates that that “agenda-setting is enhanced by stories that illustrate and personalize national problems” (Iyengar, 34). To test this, they tried two different sub-experiments, whereby individual were shown news programs with filtered content (some were shown impersonal stories about national problems and some were shown very personal and emotional stories for example) to see how the tone and presentation of the news would affect the participants perceptions of the story/political actors. They concluded that “vivid cases fail to enhance the influence of the evening news…but rather that, under certain circumstances, vivid cases may actually diminish the capacity of the news to influence the public’s political priorities” (Iyengar, 39).
I found this hard to believe. Any maybe it is because 20 years of technology advances have shaped my perception, but I couldn't believe that visual cues and the tone of a story couldn't affect the perceived out come of a news story (at least not in today's society). The first example that came to mind to counter this conclusion was last year’s big news story about Senator George Allen’s 'comment' at a campaign rally in Virginia. Of course, I am referring to the now infamous “macaca comment.” Here’s where I feel that this example validates the vividness hypothesis. The story when it first happened didn’t make any big splashes in the news media. All the media had to go by was text of his comment, which when shown to viewers wasn’t deemed as anything of note. That was until video of the moment began to pop-up. When the video and news media stories started showing it, it spread around the internets to where millions of people saw Sen. Allen make his comment. Public opinion then began to sway against him in Virginia. That moment and the uproar that it caused, more than anything else in my opinion, was the main source to his eventual election defeat. This in my opinion contradicts the results from the experiment from 20 + years ago because it shows that the visual cues in the story were much more powerful and effective the just the audio or text of the speech as it was presented immediately, and helped change public opinion on the Senator.
To sum it all up, this was an interesting, albeit dated presentation of how the news media effects the public’s perceptions through different elements in their broadcasts. This is the first example I can find of any type of comprehensive study of the media and its affects on public perceptions. I would be truly interested if these authors did a follow up to this study some twenty years later, to see how the many facets of the internet, news on demand and 24 hour news cycles, have changed their previous findings.
Citation for the book:
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. 1987
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
