What I learned.

Well, here I am at Blog #25 (down to the wire, this whole project is due in 62 minutes, but I made it nonetheless). Because I’ll never feel as though I accomplish anything without a conclusion to my work, I’m going to do a little synopsis of the major points of this project. I am living evidence that AP English will ruin your life; I feel like anything without a thesis and conclusion is illegible. Don’t take AP English.

Anyways, I’ve written for the past month-ish about how the opinions and habits of college students are affected by their media consumption. For the most part, I assumed that the majority of college students were liberal; I also assumed that most college students have a efficacy that is far below the normal population. After researching and writing, I still believe these points are true, but only to a certain extent. Looking at possible reasons for why a college student might be more liberal than the average citizen, my eyes were opened to aspects of college life that are exactly the opposite of what I predicted. Though teenagers are stereotyped as rebellious liberals, their disregard for the environment conflicts with most liberal ideology. College students aren’t as ignorant as I anticipated either; sure, there are the token individuals who will find out a woman is running for president a month after she is inaugurated (pray that our first female president has a normal laugh), but we really do care about current events. From the people I talked with, especially freshmen, this first semester was so turbulent with moving out and getting new freedoms that forming educated opinions wasn’t high on the list of priorities. I’d be interested to talk with a few freshmen again after the end of another semester, to see how more college experience affects them. Perhaps after getting a longer chance to settle in, they’d resume, or begin, new media habits to stay in the know.

If I could repeat this assignment, I’d like to think I would try to space out my entries more, but we both know that probably wouldn’t happen. Besides my obvious procrastination, I wish that I would’ve had a better media diet myself going into the project. Until I had to write these blogs, I read the newspaper only because I didn’t want to fail daily news quizzes in my journalism class. Now I’m at the point where I wake up and skim AZ Central and Huffington Post just so I have the gist of the news, and then I read the paper later in the day. Then throughout the day, I’ll poke around on a few blog pages and, before the strike, I’d catch The Daily Show/ Colbert Report on TV. If I had these habits three months ago, I think I would’ve gotten a lot more out of the assignment. These blogs have also given me a taste of writing out of obligation. Sure, I’ve always had to write essays and things for grades in school, but I’ve never had the opportunity to do this more creative type of writing for a school project. I know now that I don’t feel the same way about writing as a career, I don’t like it as much when it becomes a requirement. Yeah, I know honors projects aren’t a requirement, but I’ve always had trouble with defining the term “requirement.”

Thanks for reading. I’m newly addicted to iWeb, so I have a website in the works. I’ll keep you all posted.

Please Read Responsibly.

On my present topic of humor, I found this article. It mostly pertains to business owners, but humor improves businesses and advertisements in the same ways as journalism. Everything is a business, including journalism. So even if I don’t agree with the use of humor to spice up news, I never really considered humor as a means of keeping the industry alive. Worldwide changes in how people get the news have changed the field of journalism from an emphasis in print media, to broadcast and digital media. Newspaper readership is down; everyone knows this, but the downward trend in voter participation isn’t showing signs of stopping either. If humor is what it takes to get people educated on current events, then so be it. Just as I concluded with the subject of The Daily Show/Colbert Report, if the population is knowledgeable about their world, then who cares how it happened? Let’s say they read USA Today, awesome. Let’s say they read The Onion and watched Bill Maher, that’s awesome too.

Politicians themselves can also use humor. I never listen to radio. But when I do, it’s with my parents, so NPR is the station of choice. NPR has a great storyon humor and politics. (I don’t think it will work on Macs, I had to get on my roommates computer to hear it.) I never thought about the humor actual politicians use, this radio segment gives more of an inside view on humor from the other angle. At a different ASU (Arkansas State University), Dr. Patrick Stewart conducted a study where he analyzed the 2008 presidential candidates by the humor they used (this was directly following his brief stint on the U.S.S. Enterprise). He makes quite a few claims about the candidates just based on his or her sense of humor and how they deliver jokes.

“ ‘Looking at the other candidates and seeing how they use humor will tell us a little bit about them, but also tells us how Americans respond,’ Stewart said.”

Americans are going to feel more comfortable with a candidate if he or she is able to crack a few jokes every once in awhile. Humor can make even the most pretentious person very relatable. The moral of the story; humor is okay, in politics and journalism. This probably makes me bi-polar, because I certainly didn’t feel that way yesterday.

This is what happens when humor in news just gets completely ridiculous. But of course, it’s still funny.

Misusing News.

I might be in a conservative mood today, but for this blog I will look at the drawbacks of humor in politics. Back on 23/6.com, I found this article criticizing Rudy Giuliani and his flippant use of statistics. Like most satire, the article is funny; I won’t deny it. Now take a look at how the New York Times covers the same issue. When the two stories are compared with each other, the funny article holds no facts. Other than the basic idea that Giuliani uses statistics badly, there is no actual information in the 23/6 story. None. The story functions solely to provide a laugh after the real information is understood. In fact, without the NY Times link placed directly below the 23/6 story, the story doesn’t even make sense. But, like I said, I could just be feeling conservative and I have less patience for pointless exaggerations that pretend to be real news.

It scares me that people might be using humorous satire new sources as their only news sources. I’m not trying to insult 23/6.com. They aren’t pretending to be completely reputable; I mean their slogan is “Some of the News/Most of the Time,” and they pride themselves on being “News You Can Misuse.” These fake news sources, including our old pals John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, are very easily misused because they are very tempting. Like Wikipedia and freaking ready-made brownies that now include their own baking tin so you don’t have to bother with even touching the unbaked batter, humorous news is tempting because it’s easy, accessible and more fun.

But don’t be too quick to throw out 60 Minutes, Encyclopedia Brittannica or your old-fashioned flour and cocoa powder.

Yo mama’s so fat, she directly contributes to a robust economy.

I stole that title from the headline of this article featured on 23/6.com. It is a website primarily for satirical humor and is affiliated somehow with Huffington Post. With headlines like “Dennis Kucinich Wants to Hook Up With Ron Paul” and “These People Need to Have Their YouTubes Tied,” the website follows the number one rule of headline writing; grab the reader’s attention. Now, if you saw either of these headlines on the front page of your Arizona Republic this morning, I’d be willing to bet the delicious chocolate soymilk I’m currently drinking that you’d read the story with the funny headline first. And why not? Humans like to laugh; it’s why six comedies can be found among the twelve highest grossing movies from last Friday, it’s why shows like Family Guy, The Office, South Park, The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live and Scrubs (!) have found such astounding popularity among Americans and, unfortunately, it’s assured that “Laughter is the best medicine” will be the most clichéd and annoying proverb or all time.

This is where my question/topic for today comes in, at what point does the use of humor to make tedious stories more reader friendly interfere with basic reporting?

I would have to guess that the illustrations of Thomas Nast are probably one of the earliest examples of using humor to make politics interesting. I’m not sure I believe this, but according to Wikipedia, Nast created the Republican Elephant, the Democratic Donkey and the commonly accepted version of Santa Claus. He was a pretty intense guy, and his works opened the door to other editorial cartoonists. For the most part, humor in politics has historically been reserved for minority parties (the party not in power, not a party full of Asians or Hispanics). In present-day journalism, Steve Benson draws political cartoons for the Arizona Republic; he pokes fun at the Bush Administration, Hilary Clinton and pop culture in general (his archives).

Political cartoons can be likened with cheating in school. There are two kinds of students who try to cheat in school. There are smart people with no conscience who plan everything and are never caught, and there are the less-conniving, naïve bunch blatantly flipping through a test copy during the test and are caught every time. Political cartoons are funny if you’ve got the background knowledge to help explain exactly what the artist is trying to convey. But if you don’t keep up on the news, a bias-laden cartoon is only going to sway your opinions without your knowledge. Or you just won’t get it. I don’t get a lot of cartoons I see; but if nothing else, it’s funny to see how different artists portray George Bush. He is a characterature-friendly guy I suppose.

Because most people my age aren’t as interested in current events as their counterparts from the prior generation were, they look for humor to make the news more interesting. Cue The Daily Show/Colbert Report, but I’ve talked about them enough. However, as teenagers watch or read humorous commentary on an event, they are only getting the warped version of what happened. It’s a vicious cycle; the very reason thing that makes the news exciting creates a false image of what’s going on.

This doesn’t say much for my profession. Or mankind. People have decided that the factual truth is not exciting enough, so they should make it funny.

More on this later today…

Some political cartoons I found funny.

CNN/YouTube Debates.

Rudy hides the expenses.

Bush bashing.

Some politicians are worth investigating.

Rather than just babble on and on like I did in the last blog, I think I’ll just give links to what intelligent people had to say and comment on that.

This article is very comprehensive (codeword for long), but it tackles the issue of trust vs. truth that so many journalists deal with on a daily basis. Mark Feldstein points out in the article that every journalist’s dream is to make big discoveries like those of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein; it isn’t often that someone will stop and really consider the consequences of their actions when the possibility of fame looms nearby. Granted, Woodward and Bernstein weren’t most concerned with the hopes of being famous, but the success of these men has created a precedent for other aspiring journalists. The article also tells of how the government-media relationships changed on a smaller level.

“The media's ‘gotcha’ questioning is also the product of White House evasion and duplicity, which has continued since Nixon's resignation. Indeed, just as journalism has grown more aggressive since Watergate, so, too, has political spin. Investigative reporter Polk, now a senior producer at CNN, believes that ‘politics has changed more as a result of Watergate than journalism has, to the benefit of politicians more than journalists. Even in the Nixon White House, there was at least a camaraderie of proximity among officials who worked near reporters. Now, not only are the doors closed, but administrations are much better at controlling leaks of sensitive information.’ ”

More recently, the discovery of Giuliani’s flagrant use of thousands in taxpayers’ money is a common-day example of investigative journalism at work. Yes, the scandal is minor (so minor, that I’m not really even sure why it’s still a leading story on many websites), but even this fairly insignificant slip-up will no doubt cost Giuliani in the polls. Before this story, he had ratings of anywhere between the upper twenties and lower thirties; his lead among the other Republican candidates is fairly substantial. Personally, I don’t like him, and I like him even less now. I don’t think that the presidency is the next step for him; I’m sorry Rudy, I know you were mayor of the biggest city in the country during the biggest terrorist attack in the country, but be a senator or a governor or something. Then we’ll talk. Now, John McCain, he was a POW during the Vietnam War; we should just inaugurate him now.

This article shows how the ex-mayor of NYC feels about Giuliani’s abuse of power.

Investigative Journalism: blessing or curse?

As I enter the home stretch of this project, I’m going to use Rudy Giuliani’s recent slew of bad publicity to talk about investigative journalism. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read up.

With primaries right around the corner, these next four weeks are going to be intense for all the candidates. Americans tend to vote with a short-term memory, so the candidates’ actions will greatly affect their success as the primaries draw near. It will be interesting to see how the uncovering of Giuliani’s minor skeleton plays out for the GOP front-runner.

The role of investigative journalism has had a substantial effect not only on the perception of government, but it could be attributed to the overall lack of political efficacy my generation suffers from. Go with me on this; events like the Tet Offensive and Watergate asserted the media’s function of a watchdog over the government. The media begins to uncover scandals of politicians and corporations throughout the rest of the century, and through the next. Because my generation, the “echo baby boomers” or whatever we are called, has grown up in the midst of this new perception of the government’s ineptitude; people have no desire to read the newspaper or keep up with current events. We’ve been brought up with the notion that constituents are detached from the institution of government. Maybe I’m pulling this out of thin air, but I feel like the way I look at our leaders is much different from the way my grandmother did when she was my age. When she talks about events of the past, like World War II or the Red Scare, she thinks of them as national efforts; whenever the government was involved with a country or an altercation overseas, most Americans felt committed to whatever the government was doing. Today, Americans are very detached from the Iraq conflict, and all the blame is placed on the Bush Administration/Republican Party rather than the entire country taking responsibility for what our government has done.

This growing distance between citizens and leaders, no doubt, is partially due to the media’s responsibility to report the truth, no matter who, or what, is at fault. What was once controversial to disclose, such as a president’s polio affliction, is now grounds for a top story, like the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal or Giuliani’s run-in with the law.

Arguably, the era of investigative journalism has already passed. Sure, every once in awhile, local news stations will do an investigative piece, but that thread of journalism is expensive. An investigative team is a costly expenditure that many newspapers cannot afford during this perpetual dip in circulation. Regardless, the work of investigative journalists has left its mark in history.

An interesting article on the future of investigative journalism.

More on this subject later…I’m going to go play in the rain like the native Arizonan I am.

GOP Debate. Yawn.

And I’m not just yawning because it’s nearly one in the morning…

So I don’t think I could let this night go by without blogging about the Republican CNN YouTube debate. Part of this is because it interests me, part is because I have six more blogs to do before Monday. But it could be worse. Much much worse.

Right off the bat, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney got in this petty argument incited from the first question on immigration. Poor Anderson Cooper is trying politely, but desperately to keep the candidates moving with the schedule for the debate; neither man will shut up. I felt bad for him. Giuliani is backed into a corner for his “sanctuary city” immigration policy, so he jabs at Romney for hiring illegal immigrants in his house. Once everyone got back on track, it seemed that the questions came smoothly and each candidate answered on topic (for the most part).

I predicted in my earlier blog about this debate that the GOP would have the most difficulty dealing so closely with the American people in an unscripted environment. Romney made a big stink, as you probably remember, about answering the question of a lowly snowman; he suggested that the imposed snowman in a video wasn’t worthy of inquiring a potential President of the U.S. I felt that the Republicans handled the spontaneity of the video questions very well, but their answers were still rehearsed and dull. Granted, I missed the last 45 minutes of the debate; I had to go to choir, so don’t hold me to whatever happened to the end. Not one of the candidates said anything unexpected or out of their comfort zone.

Watch it. Decide for yourself.

Even though I was less than impressed with the Republicans today, I still love the idea of placing the tradition of a presidential debate in the hands of the electorate. Maybe I’m just in a Constitutional mood, but what better way to increase voter efficacy, involve a reticent generation and ensure that candidates are staying true to issues of the people? It might not be traditional, but these new debates raise the standards for both leaders and constituents. Kudos. Kudos to everyone.

Here are some articles on the debate’s better moments.

Mike Huckabee’s fantasy of Clinton on Mars.

The joke is on you New York City! Your taxpayers helped fuel Giuliani’s affair, bet you feel duped. Giuliani’s response. I guess I believe him.

A good pre-debate article.

A good response to criticisms from the “good pre-debate” article.

Sorry Colbert, a million Facebook supporters doesn't mean jack.

I’m sorry. I’m not quite sick of talking about Facebook yet. Rest assured that I will be sick of talking about it after today.

As far as Facebook and politics go, I found opinions all across the spectrum. Personally, I see great potential for Facebook to have a substantial effect on the upcoming election; however, this effect will only go as far as the lazy college students that created the phenomenon to begin with. It’s much easier to join a group supporting Barack Obama than to actually go out and vote for him; it will be interesting to see if Facebook supporters will show real support when the time comes. This poll asked 239 people what kind of effect “Facebook campaigning” would have on politics. 129 (54%) said the impact would be minor, 84 (35%) said there would be no effect, and 26 (11%) said the effect would be enough to sway the vote.

Really, there’s no way of knowing for certain how social networking websites will effect the election until election day, or the primaries at least. This section of blogs argues that people use Facebook merely for recreational purposes, and will be turned off by applications that offer opportunities to engage in debate (such as US Politics, which I mentioned prior). This intrigued me; so I found an interesting study done on how Facebook users spend their time. Because I can’t hope to explain the data in a way as exciting as the riveting circles on the website, I suggest going there and looking for yourself. The findings surprised me, and they show that the argument claiming that Facebook users aren’t interested in political applications or groups (as shown by the low activity with applications and group browsing in comparison to other activities) can carry some weight. Still, I stay with my original pessimistic prediction; the 18 – 24-year-olds, while they willingly place pictures of Ron Paul all over their profiles, might not make the real world sacrifices to go out and vote.

The other article is slightly older; I think this may contribute to the optimistic outlook it takes.

This article offers a humorous interpretation on the Facebook’s effect on the election.

Facebook and the Media/Advertisers.

There’s this application on Facebook that supposedly tells you how much your profile is worth. I added it and it didn’t work. It says that by taking your number of friends, photos, wall posts and other posted items, it can determine how much your page is worth to advertisers. When the article was written, calculations found the average profile to be worth $725. People who are more active with their profile will be “worth more,” and vice versa. But, like I said, the application didn’t work for me.

Regardless, the article makes the point that Facebook is a lucrative way to potentially reach a very specialized set of the population. It’s clear that advertisers have already gotten in on the business; this article shows how advertisers can use a profile’s “Personal Interests” to make their services more individual. If this seems like exploitation of your privacy, you should know that advertisers use this technique to control not only the ads you see on Facebook.com, but also the ads you might see on a completely random website.

From the article; “…if you’ve listed in your profile that one of your favorite bands is Coldplay, you might see an ad for their CD or concert tickets when browsing a random web site like ESPN. And who might sell these ads? Microsoft, who already has access to tens of thousands of advertisers through a variety of online advertising initiatives within the software giant’s online offerings.”

I include all this info on advertisers because, until now, ads have always been present with the media. Social networking websites are one of the first areas where the advertisers have beat the major media corporations to the punch. Every major media company exists today because of it’s advertisements, but it didn’t start out that way. At first, advertisers needed a newspaper or radio station to reach people; no longer, now Myspace and Facebook have already collected the people. This article talks of why media companies are slow to join the Facebook party. I have no doubts that the media will become much more prevalent in social networking sites. I think it would be awesome to wake up, open my Facebook page, and find breaking news from The Arizona Republic on my news feed right alongside relationship updates and wall posts. It’s only a matter of time I suppose.

Simply reading this title proves my point.

I found a good article today. It’s not so much an article, more like an announcement.

“Facebook, the popular social networking site, has become a full-fledged platform for communicating, sharing and advertising. ABC News is betting that it will become a platform for political coverage, as well.

ABC News and Facebook have formally established a partnership -- the site's first with a news organization -- that allows Facebook members to electronically follow ABC reporters, view reports and video and participate in polls and debates, all within a new 'U.S. Politics' category.”

This is a pretty big deal. Facebook has 55 million active users. Half of these users are in college or high school. If that’s not a media outlet to a huge chunk of impressionable minds, I don’t know what is. By allowing any user to create an application, the media has the opportunity to reach and impact the political decisions in a way different from a newspaper or magazine. The application supported by ABC is called “US Politics;” it allows users to display candidates and politicians they support, participate in debates, and a convenient link to look at recent ABC news on the application’s homepage. Just the fact that you, kind reader, are on Facebook reading this blog serves to represent the ability of anyone to display their opinions in a popular, prevalent way.

The utilizations of social networking websites for the media are endless; so endless that I’m going to do more poking around on the ole world wide web for more information.

An interview with Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

The last paragraph of this article brings up an interesting point. “After ten months online, a Facebook group called ‘1,000,000 Strong for Barack Obama’ has only 164,000 members, but a parody group called ‘1,000,000 Strong for Stephen Colbert’ topped a million members in just ten days.” Ah, funny people always prevail.

Fulfilled wishes can be bittersweet.

I’m going to write about this article today. Besides being depressing, I see this new development with the Iraq conflict as a big step for the U.S. government. The only reason I say the article is depressing is because as I read, even though I am in no way a fan of what has gone on in the Middle East, I couldn’t help but detect a despairing tone in it. It’s like the government is like a young child who has been told Santa Clause doesn’t exist; the government has, in a sense, given up all their hopes for a positive ending to the conflict. So while part of me has a great deal of respect for the Bush administration, another part of me feels bad for them; they have come to terms with the reality of the situation. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this sympathy comes from the way in which the article was written.

I think that a more liberal individual would have much less sympathy for the administration. At nationalpriorities.org, there is a count showing the total cost of the Iraq War. (It’s pretty cool, you can compare the war costs with spending on housing, education, children’s’ health and other neat things.) As I’ve sat here with the window open, I’m watching the total go up by roughly $1,000 every second. That’s pretty intense. At 6:53:50 pm, it reads $471,449,320,678. I divided that amount by the total population of the United States (303,447,068), and found that to cover the cost of the war, each American would have to surrender $1,553.65. This number first struck me as small, but it’s $1,553.65 from every man, woman and child in the United States. Again, it’s pretty intense. But more importantly than monetary figures, 3,875 have been killed since war began on March 19, 2003. I have to wonder how the families of those killed feel about the government lowering their expectations; personally, it’s almost as if every effort made up until this point is somewhat invalidated.

Really, I guess I would just be curious to see how others interpreted the article. I believe it was written with a conservative bias, and this is why it evokes a certain feeling of remorse for the government.

Or I could just be feeling moody. Who knows?

I’ll conclude with the same point I’ve made many times. The way in which the media portrays the facts has a monumental effect on how these facts are perceived. The Spanish-American War, the Tet Offensive, Watergate, and more recently, The Daily Show/Colbert Report are all evidence of the relationship between the media and overall perceptions.

Jon Stewart the next Walter Cronkite? (part 2)

So I did some substantial searching (well, not so much me, but Google did quite a bit of work), and found more articles on The Daily Show, but they weren’t very friendly.

This article, like many of the others I found, mentions a growing cynicism among the American youth caused directly from The Daily Show and other satirical celebrities (Howard Stern, Michael Moore, etc.). The blog also has numerous links; this makes it my favorite.

I find this an interesting phenomenon. These bloggers are suggesting that while The Daily Show/Colbert Report are educating their viewers on important political developments (as I talked about yesterday), the efficacy of these viewers is dropping. Any show with a strong support from youth can be very impactful; mostly because youth, by virtue of being young, don’t know anything. So a teenager who knows nothing about politics or current events other than the watered-down versions on Comedy Central is going to absorb all they hear from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert like it’s complete truth(iness). I’m not surprised in the slightest bit by these findings.

This article really drives home this depressing result of a funny show that happened to talk solely about politics. I think the author might be a little on the extreme side, but his evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

On a lighter note, Colbert gave this comment to graduates of Knox College (which is why it sounds vaguely like a sermon); “Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it,” he said. “Cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying ‘yes’ begins things. Saying ‘yes’ is how things grow. … ‘Yes’ is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say ‘yes.’ ”

And who says he needs writers? Come to think of it, he probably didn’t write that.

After all this writing I’ve done on the youth being influenced by satirical cable news shows, this last piece of information I will leave you with shows that the Internet is still the best source for the promotion of political awareness. I stole it from the first article. Do you ever get the feeling that some of your best work is done in vain?

Well I sure do.

The Colbert quote is from this awesome article.

Jon Stewart the next Walter Cronkite?

With this sorry excuse for a school week coming to a close, I’m going to relieve some growing frustration I have for the writers’ strike. I’ve been without my nightly political satire for almost three weeks; I don’t need to tell you that it’s rough, you probably know already.

I’ve already said that I don’t consider The Daily Show/Colbert Report to be real journalism, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t affected the political/current event education of the masses. While this article is old, it’s information is viable today. CNN found that viewers of The Daily Show knew more about politics in 2004 than non-viewers. That’s a pretty big deal; though I might not equate Stewart or Colbert’s accomplishments with those of Walter Cronkite, the overall effect of the shows is one that accomplished broadcasters can only dream of. Despite the shows’ notable success, Stewart and Colbert are missing a key characteristic found in every typical news show. I’ve been a journalism student less than one hundred days, and I can still tell you that the lack of objectivity will forever distinguish Comedy Central’s news from real news.

This article offers a little criticism on Stewart’s business of criticism.

“Stewart, who has called the Iraq war a mistake, is more likely than Jay Leno or David Letterman to ridicule Bush while going easy on Kerry, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. ‘He's an outstanding comedian, but clearly he does comedy from the Democratic left perspective,’ says Republican strategist Mike Murphy. ‘A lot of people who watch Stewart and howl at the jokes already have their minds made up in the presidential race,’ ” Howard Kurtz, of The Washington Post, writes.

So it’s very obvious that both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert “report” the news with a liberal bias, but what does this have to do with college students? Well, believe it or not, there is a ridiculous amount of research done on this topic. A study called The Daily Show: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth claims that the 18-24 year olds are the largest age group viewing the show and 54% of this entire age bracket reports The Daily Show as one of their news sources. I will do you a favor, and not hyperlink this study; it will lead you to a 28-page PDF, and no one wants that. Every study I found is based on the election of 2004; so before I embark on a mission through the world wide web to find something more recent, I’ll leave this subject for a later date. By later, I mean tomorrow. I wonder how many times I will suffer the consequences of procrastination before I learn the lesson.

As a departing note, my roommate and I took our recycling out today. Seven bags. It was a good time, and a long walk. But, we have doubled the floor space in our dorm.

It's not easy being green.

I had heard about Freerice.com, but hadn’t visited until today. Now I’m rather addicted. Turns out my latest addiction feeds people; it’s awesome. The powers that be also extended my deadline for this project, also awesome.

Wow. Today is Awesome Day.

Speaking of the liberal agenda (world hunger), I shall continue my little section on college students and their liberal-ness. Today I want to touch on the environment and how I see a bit of a departure from the liberal college student stereotype when it comes to sustaining the environment. This whole topic comes from a conversation regarding the “recycling” program in my dorm, Hassayampa.

Let me break this down; every room in Hassayampa comes with a blue recycling bin. Great right? Of course, until you take into account that the only outdoor bin to place your bags of recycled stuff is about a ten-minute walk away. Ten minutes isn’t that far or long, but when you are carrying a huge box full of a month’s worth of newspapers and no one offers to help, the distance becomes annoying. As a result of this unfortunate distance, my roommate and I haven’t taken our recycling bags out in about two months. We still recycle, but the bags just chill in the entrance to our dorm. From what I hear, most students living here use their handy little blue bins for their recycling, but the recycling bags go in the outdoor trash bin because it’s too far to walk to the recycling bin. If I didn’t complain about this regularly to my roommate, our recycling bags would end up in the trash can as well.

Teenagers don’t like to inconvenience themselves. I’m no exception. On more than one occasion this semester, my roommate and I have been victims of the low flow plumbing Hassayampa tends to brag about. It wasn’t fun, pretty, or convenient in any way. I have no idea how much water this complex saves by using low flow plumbing, but when I couldn’t shower or pee in my own bathroom, I was quite irritated.

Azcentral.com has this list of 52 things people can do to improve their green living. Some of the items are student-friendly, such as carpooling (no one wants to be a DD if they don’t have to), but others are suggestions the average student would turn down in a heartbeat. Turning off/unplugging electronics, avoiding bottled water, becoming vegetarian, turning off lights, buying used products, all these options strike me as being tasks a student wouldn’t do voluntarily.

The whole reason our environment is degrading can be attributed to mankind’s dislike of inconvenience; it’s why global warming even became an issue. I don’t know why, perhaps it’s just an egotist tendency of people my age, but I feel like college students have complete disregard for their environment.

This study compared the environmental habits of business majors with environmental studies majors. Their results aren’t outside of anything you’d predict, I just found it interesting that they picked this topic in the first place. I’m not positive this will load for everyone.

Here is another list of ways to save the environment, but it is specified for college students.

This article has to do with an increased interest in careers in alternative energy due to increased research and publicity of global warming.

War is a major faux pas.

Just to keep things spicy, I’m going to take a different route with tonight’s blog. Personally, I find the whole peace trend to be too watered down to make any sort of real impact. A website called Cafepress.com, which sells products made by individual members, has 2,150,000 products with a peace related message.

I would say, in general, college students do not know how to show their support for a cause without a t-shirt or bumper sticker. Band t-shirts are a result of this; as are the magnetic yellow ribbons that ask So even though the whole rising peace movement is gaining most of it’s popularity through it’s rival, materialism, I found that Americans are actually going out and physically supporting the logos on their chests. The Peace Corps has seen a significant increase in the number of its volunteers,

I’m sorry, I’m going to talk about the presidential election again. It’s important to notice where peace falls in the upcoming presidential election. Each democratic candidate at least mentions the immediate necessity for a plan to take the U.S. out of Iraq. Earlier on in the year, John McCain saw a fairly significant drop in support after he backed President Bush in his war efforts. Arguably, he will continue to take hits for his endorsement of an increased military commitment.

People are sick of being at war. 68% of Americans disapprove of the job George Bush is doing in Iraq and 54% believe that a victory in Iraq is no longer possible. The greeting card company, American Greetings, published this article on the increase demand for cards giving a message of peace. These turbulent times inspire the need to mail a wish for peace along with the yearly family Christmas photo. War is not hip right now; those who support it are probably getting some crap for it. Lo and behold, there is another reason for the peace epidemic that has come to affect so many college students and other liberal hippies.

Besides being ironic, this article just puts yet another spin on the idea of peace.

"All we are saying..."

I’m going to write for a little while on the tendency of college students to be liberal. I say “a little while” because I really have no idea or agenda for these blogs, this series on liberal behavior is no exception. I’m going to wing it.

I started thinking about some bandwagon political messages that teenagers tend to subscribe to. The one that sticks out most in my mind is peace. When you start thinking about it, the cry for peace has infiltrated countless aspects of the adolescent community. Granted, this is my first experience in the college environment, so this peace epidemic might be something that started 40 years ago and never went away. But because I’m getting my first taste of this vague hope for peace, it’s peaked my interest. This wish for peace I’ve noticed could also be contained to the type of students I commonly work with. Regardless, I would challenge someone to walk around on this campus for an hour to count the references to peace. Everyday I see tie-dyed clothing with messages of peace, John Lennon shirts with peace signs, peace signs in dorm room windows (other than my own) and even on Facebook (are you a member of “I Bet I Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Just Want Peace?”) and YouTube (there are 240,000 hits when you search the word “peace”). Now this isn’t Miss America’s stereotypical wish for “world peace,” or hippie peace from the 70’s; peace has become cool. I would go as far as saying that peace is now a trend. And all brainwashed teenagers want to get in on the action.

Other than the obvious causes for this movement, such as an unpopular war, I started to wonder if peace is so popular among college students solely because people this age are typically more liberal than the rest of the population. Much of the media college students consume is thought to be left-wing oriented (The Daily Show/Colbert Report, Rolling Stone and CNN). But surely liberal media alone hasn’t been the single cause of an entire historical trend among college students. This article is a few years old, but it says some interesting things about the lack of political diversity on many college campuses. One of the comments from that article mentions that most college students don’t have a family to care for or similar responsibilities, this makes them more likely to be liberal. My main theory remains; as teenagers are exposed to more new information, they form different opinions. For me, I’ve never been surrounded by this many people my own age with developed political beliefs. Being able to discuss war strategy or the use of abortion in the line at Einstein’s is a completely foreign experience (I know, I need to get out more). Normally I would only talk with my stubbornly conservative parents about politics and the like. Life in college is revealing to me an entire spectrum of liberal beliefs that are actually educated and legitimate.

Speaking of my stubbornly conservative parents, my expert powers of persuasion have made my mom open to the idea of a pierced eyebrow. Just had to throw that in; I’m really excited about it.

I’m fairly certain that I’m not alone in this collegiate exodus to the left (dark) side. So, in a circular fashion, I think I’ve found some support to the reasons behind the peace movement. I’ll continue these peace rants later.
I found this videoto be a perfect example of the universal promotion of peace among youth. After watching it, feel free to hug a tree or send your unfinished Big Mac to any third world country.

Hmm...no title today.

I’ve gotten myself into a little problem. Today is November 11th. By November 26th, I have to complete 25 blogs. I’ve done eight. Can I get a “yikes?”

However, Clinton’s lead in the polls has been drastically reduced. This is exciting news.

But for dinner my vegetarian family decided to have “veggie tacos;” veggie tacos are made with “ground beef” created from soy. It was nearly the most repulsing thing I’ve ever eaten; after some barbecued chicken feet and a terrible cranberry sauce experience in the Hassayampa Cafeteria.

I digress. But to digress, I believe I should’ve initially made a point from which to digress from. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t made a point yet.

Whatever, in desperation (resulting from paragraph numero uno), I found this article. I know, I always have random articles to read, and I’m sorry. I apologize further because this is a long article, but it’s really interesting and otherwise none of this will make sense. Try taking the test; it’s kinda fun.

I’ll first start by saying that I think the study neglects a few key aspects of a typical college education. For instance, the reason college freshman passed the test and seniors failed it; is simply because they forgot menial facts after four years. I think it’s safe for most colleges to assume that incoming freshman should be well-studied in areas of civil literacy; so of course they aren’t going to cover this material in the typical Government 101 class. I won’t deny that this basic information on the history of America is vital to anyone who claims to be an American, but it’s not the responsibility of a university to teach these facts.

So my big problem with this whole issue isn’t that universities aren’t teaching students the right information, I find it ridiculous that college students don’t take the initiative to learn or remember these things on their own. This is where I get all worked up about how ignorant the typical teenager is. I’d like to share this story; in my math class, there is this girl from Southern California. So on the Tuesday after the fires in Southern California made the front page on every major newspaper and were the lead story on nearly every nightly newscast, my math teacher told this girl for the first time that her hometown had been evacuated. After learning this, she promptly left class; hopefully to go call her family and read the paper.

Seriously? I mean, I’m really just surprised and shocked to point where I’m not even going to say anything else. Which is pretty intense for me.

I’m just very annoyed by the stereotype of college students who don’t keep up on current events. And I guess that’s where I’ll leave for tonight.

I swear to you on my life that I ALWAYS write these blogs before I read the comments on each article. Here’s a person that agrees with me on the article. I agree with this one as well, but it takes a different perspective.

Quagmire.

So I stumbled across this article in my travels through The Huffington Post. Take a look; Bush-haters will like it. Personally, I found what Bush said to be naïve and very narcissistic, but that’s just my opinion. On a whim, I decided to ask my friend Katie Wilson, who happened to have seen Bush’s comment on CNN, how she felt about it. She is a freshman, biology major from Wisconsin, and she’s in choir with me. Katie’s brother just returned home from a year of service in Iraq and Kuwait. I was curious to see what she would say given her unique vantage point.

“When he left, he was really exciting about going. He thought it was going to be a really good cause. But as the months went by, his letters got more and more depressing. He escorted supply trucks back and forth between Kuwait to Northern Iraq. He never really experienced any difference that he himself was making in what he saw there. He had great experiences with individual people there, he gave children toys and things. But, from what he said, there is a lot more chaos and anarchy then there was. It’s dangerous, crime at night is up; some soldiers in my brother’s battalion didn’t make it back. From what I’ve read the cities are a lot less buttoned down then they were under Saddam.”

In my journalism class, we are learning about Watergate (I think this could possibly be the eleventh time I’ve “learned” about Watergate), but more specifically, the effect the scandal had on the media and how the government communicates with it’s constituents. I’m finding it difficult to really trust what people like President Bush and General Petraeus say most of the time. They have the precarious job of striking the exact balance between being honest with the public, and not freaking them out badly enough to incite a mob or create terrible administration ratings (well, they had their chance). There is always, always, always going to be a different perception to any given situation. That’s where the press comes in! Awesome, a blog and a career affirmation all wrapped into one!

I would also like to commend Bush for knowing the definition of “quagmire.” The President of the United States knew something I didn’t. I feel better now; every once in a while, he worries me.

My Roommate.

Because I have a shocking and quite depressing number of blogs left to do for my project, I’m going to start interviewing some students on campus. Hopefully I’ll be able to find students that represent many different angles and views, especially ones different from my own. I really need to stop talking about myself; it’s a problem.

On that note, I’m going to start by interviewing my roommate, Sydnie Cotter. I do this for a number of reasons; the first, she is a freshman psychology major and I’m interested to see how the average, non-journalism major goes about their media consumption, the second, because we are sitting around waiting for the plumbers to come fix our bathroom (I will not elaborate) and we have nothing else to do. I also want to try a less conventional interview style; I find Q and A interview style sort of awkward when I’m talking with my roommate for a story that will ultimately end up on Facebook.

Like I said, Sydnie is a freshman psychology major; she may go to law school after getting her B.S. (ironic), or she is quite interested in the minds of criminals, I don’t know what that profession is called. She hails from the tiny town of Miami, Arizona, with approx. 15,000 people (It’s tiny in comparison to my hometown anyway). As far as a political affiliation, she tends to identify more with the Democratic party, but she remains open-minded. Well, a very “in-your-face,” assertive, opinionated kind of open-minded.

Sydnie is quite knowledgeable about the world, for someone who isn’t graded on her mastery of current events; she watches the news once or twice a week, leisurely. More or less, she feels like she keeps up on current events; “I’m not totally ignorant to what’s going on in the world. I don’t enjoy watching the news; I just don’t want to feel dumb. Being at college has definitely made me more aware of current events. Because there isn’t a single person I really talk to everyday, like my parents, I have to rely on myself to stay informed. If I didn’t know something, most likely, someone around me did and could tell me what was going on.”

But my burning question for her had to do with her upbringing in a smaller town, and the possible differences in her political beliefs after not only moving to college, but a college in an urban area. Regarding this, she said; “In a smaller town, people don’t seemed to be as bothered with staying on top of what happens in the outside world. People there aren’t ignorant; they just are more concerned with their close-knit relationships within the town.”

So looking at Sydnie’s media habits, I didn’t see the shocking difference between her and the average journalism major I expected. I’m pretty sure there has to be a painfully ignorant college student out there somewhere (because seriously, this is ASU); I’m ready to find them, not with the premeditated intent of making them feel stupid. However, if my questions have that effect, I won’t feel bad about it.

There is no relevance to this link. It’s just funny. Had to get my Colbert fix for the evening. Those stinkin’ writers are depriving me of new, fresh comedy. I had to watch Scrubs reruns; it was such a tragedy.

GOP vs. Billiam the Snowman

Ah, it is Monday. On a grand scale of the Mondays I have encountered in my lifetime, this one isn’t so bad. I got to experience first-hand what happens when a teacher doesn’t show up after fifteen minutes of the beginning of class. It was awesome.

But I’m not going to get honors’ credit for telling you all about my day. Unfortunately.

So today, CNN released that eight major Republican candidates for president have decided to go through with their own version of the YouTube debates.

Sorry, it just dawned on me that I talk about the presidential candidates a lot. The whole process just really interests me; this is also the first election that I have ever cared about, and that I will get to vote in. It’s new and exciting. I promise to talk about other issues soon.

Anyway, back to the GOP, over 2,000 questions have already been submitted. The Democratic debate took place last July, why the delay on the Republican side? Giuliani claimed that scheduling was problematic, and we all know that Romney just felt uncomfortable talking with a snowman (links for those who missed it, watch this first,then watch this, then watch this, I promise it’s worth your time, it’s a funny story). But I think the problems lie deeper than this. Whoever thought up the idea of allowing normal, average people ask the potential leader of their country questions in a debate was certainly updating a ritual that has become engrained in the election process. What better way to reach an entire facet of politically ignorant youth than through the eight most frequented website on the Internet? Right, I think it’s obvious that the YouTube debates helped to raise political efficacy among younger generations, but how is this going to effect Republicans? Here’s my prediction; for the same reason that our friend W will only appear at events that are tightly-scripted, the Republican crowd is going to be quite uncomfortable in such flexible environment. And, even though I lean to the right wing myself, I will go as far to say that a handful of the GOP candidates were wary of appearing at a debate with such a direct contact with normal people. Republicans are much more at home with a traditional debate and the same typical questions asked by a suited professional. What is Rudy Giuliani going to say when a gay couple asks him a question about marriage rights? What is John McCain going to say to the family who lost their 18-year-old son in Iraq when they ask him about his plans with the Middle East? Or more importantly, how are the American people going to react to their responses? I feel like the Republicans are walking into a minefield by agreeing to these informal debates, but as a college student who appreciated the YouTube debates, I respect them for that. Truth be told, they really had no choice but to abide by the same rules the Democrats used. Otherwise they would’ve been torn apart by all sorts of political analysts.

Yes, I am aware that I intensely criticized the GOP and commended them within the same paragraph. I’ve been doing it my whole life.
A very comprehensive story from the Herald Tribune.
Huffington Post Blog.

My Aftershock

Even though I haven’t been to many other college campuses around the nation, I think it’s safe to say that ASU has a fairly strong chapter of Students for Ron Paul. I see the table out most days, by the fountain at the Memorial Union. I’ve stopped a few times; mostly because I’m walking with someone who wanted to learn more. I think one day I’ll go talk to whoever is there about their political beliefs, and then I’ll blog about it. That will be fun. I think I have a seriously messed-up view of what is fun.

Well, at the Barack Obama rally, the Students for Ron Paul were obviously there. And by there, I mean, they were extremely audible. From what I heard, their words tiptoed the line between acceptable and just plain rude. It’s also important to remember that I wasn’t actually inside the rally. (I showed up about 20 minutes after doors opened, and it was to capacity.) I was actually quite close to the Ron Paul table, but someone inside the fences would never have heard them. Mostly they were just disagreeing with everything Obama said, quite predictable I thought. I’m not sure what happened to these loud students, they could’ve very easily just moved to another location; for whatever reason, their remarks stopped about halfway through the speech. I heard rumors that they were told to be quiet by Obama’s henchmen, but four years of high school taught me not to trust rumors. On the same subject, there’s an article from the East Valley Tribune about a different incident from within the rally regarding free speech. A Ron Paul supporter was standing on an elevated tower in the middle of the lawn with a Ron Paul T-shirt as a sign. Now, there were Obama signs everywhere; both ones given out by his workers, and homemade ones. Still, security officers, who were either affiliated with Obama or just rented out by him, felt the need to tell the man with the Ron Paul shirt to sit down. Eventually, they asked him to leave the rally.

I felt the East Valley Tribune article explained the problem here quite well. I don’t want to keep paraphrasing it; obviously there was a serious problem with freedom of expression. I guess I bring this up because the press is centered entirely on the freedom of speech. Spending half a semester in The History and Principles of Journalism has taught me that the only thing that makes the press possible is that tiny portion of our Constitution. These incidents just put everything in perspective for me; I’ve been lucky to live in an environment where my basic freedoms haven’t been jeopardized (With only a few unfortunate exceptions; the most recent being my inability to express myself through an eyebrow piercing without being disowned by the Whitmire Clan.). In the grand scheme of freedom issues in American History, getting harassed by security at a Barack Obama rally is fairly inconsequential (genocide, slavery, segregation; these issues tend to pull a little more weight), still, this tiny incident just shows the fragility of our government. Americans function with the knowledge that we will be able to wake up every morning with certain guaranteed rights, I mean, my entire career is going to depend on these rights; we never think about how easily they could be taken away or the consequences that could come from such actions. This was fairly off my general topic, but I was inspired; I’ve always been a sucker toward my inspirations. And I’m sorry for being preachy as well.

This is very comprehensive article on the basics of freedom of speech. I found it refreshing. It has a slightly liberal bias, you’ve been warned.

I’m not sure if everyone will have access to this article, it’s from a Stanford library. It really sums up the debate of the extent to which freedom of speech should be limited, so I hope you can see it.

"Barack Star"

I didn't come up with that play on words. I'm not that clever.

I should’ve written about this earlier, but I was too busy having an awesome weekend. And I’m sure you all were doing the same, so you wouldn’t have read this blog anyway. It’s a win-win situation.

Friday I went to the Barack Obama rally at ASU. Me and 6,000 other people. It could’ve been a claustrophobic girl’s worst nightmare, but luckily, I found a shady place outside the enclosed fence with some outspoken retired Democrats who all felt the need to give me pieces of their minds. I’m not complaining; most of the older people I know are Republican, so it was enlightening. But that is all beside the point.

Prior to attending the rally, Barack Obama would maybe be in my top five picks for president. Who my number one is, I don’t even know. Every time I pick a favorite, that candidate does something or says something I don’t like. This was also the first political rally I’d ever been to. I find it important to mention both of these things because it makes me biased toward the success of the rally and of Obama. I thought he was great; he talked about his optimistic plans for healthcare, education, reduction of CO2 emissions and a roundabout “solution” to problems of immigration reform. He did some substantial Bush-bashing; as seems to be the recent trend, and told us of his plans for an abrupt end to the Iraq war that would commence after his inauguration. Though I might not have agreed with a lot of what he said or many of his views, I appreciated the way he gave his opinions. His sense of humor was great, he cracked a few jokes about his distant cousin, Dick Cheney (called him the “black sheep” of the family), and for someone traveling around the country with the sole purpose of persuading the American people of his greatness, he was quite humble and personable. And yeah, I know he gives the same speech at all his rallies and his speech-writers probably were writing for that desired effect, but I was still impressed. Here is an article that offers more background info on Obama.

Well, that’s enough about me. I talked with a junior at the rally about his political views and how he has come to develop them. He is a religious studies major at ASU who defines himself as the typical Democrat. Mrs. Clinton isn’t really his cup of tea, and he shares many of the same views as Obama; so he was very excited to hear Obama accepted the university’s offer for a rally. He also believes that the youth Obama provides is something the White House needs. He mentioned this interesting article as a comment on the race issues Obama faces as a candidate. (Is that convenient or what? I think this is the one he was talking about anyway…) While he claimed to enjoy the rally, and the intriguing commentary provided by the aforementioned retired Democrat crowd, he stressed the importance of each person reading up on the candidates for themselves. He says he keeps up with the candidates by searching them on Google and reading the articles that look interesting. “Just coming to this rally doesn’t give a good picture of Obama, and I bet there’s tons of kids here who only came because they think it’s cool and have no idea what’s going on.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. Stories are everywhere; literally a few clicks away thanks to blogs and online newspapers. It’s good to know that other students are out there taking advantage of the abundant media resources.

I also plan on writing about the incident with Ron Paul supporters in a later blog. I have to milk this subject for all it’s worth.

This blog took forever. I know I shouldn’t try to write with the TV on, but it’s Comedy Central’s fault for showing Joe Dirt and Super Troopers back to back. How am I supposed to get anything done?

Colbert 2008?

Today begins the one-week countdown until Scrubs Season 7 premieres.
Yesterday I experienced the phenomena of overwhelming fatigue that follows from an abnormally long night of sleep. I was dead tired all day. Because I’d gone to bed so early the day before, I hadn’t stayed up to do my Daily Show/Colbert Report weeknight indulgence. Clearly, I missed out on what turned out to be a very interesting pair of episodes; within the hour both shows air, Stephen Colbert announced that he was considering campaigning for the presidency on The Daily Show, only to confirm that he was going to campaign fifteen minutes later on his own show. (If you missed it.)
I’ve already touched on how I feel about these two shows, and I think Colbert’s antics make me even more annoyed with them. Maybe I’m one of the last few people in the world who sees some merit in the position of president, but it just feels like Colbert only wants to mock the process and will never take it seriously. I felt the same way when Arnold Schwarzenegger (Oh my gosh, I cannot believe “Schwarzenegger” is correctable through Microsoft Word. What a joke.) became governor (I refuse to use the term “governator” outside parenthesis to make my point) of California (Thank God “governator” isn’t in spell-check). It might just be a personal problem, because it’s difficult for me to really consider them politicians; regardless of however capable each of them may be. I don’t see any way either Colbert or Schwarzenegger could achieve an approval rating of 24%. The Bush Administration has clearly outdone themselves with that one. Congrats also go to Congress; they boast an approval rating of 11% (Last I checked anyway).
From a more optimistic point of view, Colbert’s announcement of his intentions will probably result in a remedy to the problem I was rambling on about in my last blog. Candidates don’t take full advantage of the internet as a cheap, relatively simple way to instill efficacy among the younger demographic. I’m not suggesting that Colbert Report-esque shows only appeal to us young folks, but the humor involved attracts attention to a subject that many my age would otherwise ignore. If nothing else, I must admit that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have excellent writers who can condense the daily news into humorous criticism that offers something more than CNN or MSNBC. I’ll probably delve into these two shows and their impact on students on a different day, so I’ll cut myself off now.
This anti-Colbert blog is thought-inspiring, especially if you are a fan of the show.
This is just funny.
A more objective view of how it went down.

I am a relentless complainer.

I’m supposed to blog every third day for this assignment. I’m either too picky about what to write about, not easily inspired, or very preoccupied/lazy.

Regardless, today, I was inspired. Today in JMC 110 (The History and Principles of Journalism), the professor asked how many students would be voting in their first presidential election in 2008. Virtually all 300ish students raised their hands. This makes sense, as it is an entirely freshman class, but it made me realize just how impactful young voters can be. Primaries aside, anyone who celebrated their 18th birthday between Nov. 3, 2004 and Nov. 4, 2008 will vote for president for the first time. Maybe I’m being conceited, but this seems like a pretty sizable number of voters. Presidential candidates tend to ignore the 18-24 demographic; we are age group with the lowest voter turnout and the lowest evidence of political efficacy (anyone who spent at least three days in any AP Government class could tell you that). However, people out there are beginning to think those statistics will change after this election; 75% of young adults are registered to vote for the 2008 election, 42% said they would “definitely” participate in a primary or caucus vote, and 92% were “almost certain” that they would vote in the 2008 election. (link)

So what I want to know is, why aren’t more candidates campaigning toward youth? As a young adult who mostly keeps a pretty good tab on current events, including the activities of 2008 prospectives, I’ve noticed a definite divide in campaign tactics. Basically, I will read about a candidate, mostly only John McCain, in the objective portion of the Arizona Republic quite infrequently. The editorial section will typically have a story or letter relating to the 2008 election daily or almost daily, where Mrs. Clinton is the subject quite often. What I watch on TV or listen to on the radio talks of the election about as often as the paper. But today, just for grins, I googled a few of the candidate, just to see how each candidate was utilizing the internet. John McCain – 993,000, Rudy Giuliani – 359,000, Mitt Romney – 467,000, Hilary Clinton – 2,010,000, Barack Obama – 587,000 and not surprisingly, Ron Paul – 4,610,000. Granted, counting the hits each candidate gets may not be the most accurate judgment of their internet campaigning; I think it proves my point though.

Over the past ten or twenty years, and currently; the journalism world has seen a decline in print journalism, an increase in broadcast journalism and a massive increase in the online news realm. With internet on the rise, one would think that other candidates would be taking advantage of such a direct media tool that caters, most exclusively, to the younger demographic. Sure, there are “internet candidates” (Ron Paul – 2008, Howard Dean – 2004), but candidates need to realize that the internet is the new tool for a common-day grassroots movement. Ron Paul has a MySpace (a really awesome one actually) and a Facebook account. Barack Obaba has over 500 groups on Facebook, including one with 377,881 members. There are young adults in America that have political efficacy and will actually go out to vote because they want to, not because “That black guy running for president is sooo hot.” (I won’t disclose the author of that quote, I don’t know the girl. I heard it while sitting outside Einstiens on campus. ASU certainly has the best and brightest.) With my luck, by the time presidential candidates pay attention to youth in their campaigns, I’ll be old and they’ll be ignoring me again.

See, I’m not making this stuff up.
A Washington Post Article
I only partially agree with this article, I think it is out of date, and thus, sort of invalidated.

My bias and I.

As egotistical as it may be, I have resolved to begin this project with a look at how the news media I consume affects my political opinion. I do this for two reasons; first, I want to get a feel for how I'm going to do this, second, I'm a college student. Writing about myself isn't a complete copout. Almost, but not yet complete.

Being a freshman, journalism major at ASU, I am quizzed twice a week on current events. In the few weeks I've been in the class, I have come to see just how much those quizzes affect my grade. The point is, I am much more aware of current events now, than I was three months ago. Everyday, I read the Arizona Republic; either old-school style, with the actual paper and newsprint smell and gray marks on my hands, or on azcentral.com. Most nights or mornings, I will catch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Sometimes, I read The Rolling Stone also, but other than that, I read pointless fashion magazines and watch pointless television. As much as I don't like to admit this, I probably wouldn't read the paper anywhere near daily if the bribery of an acceptable grade didn't strongly motivate me. And, while many would argue that the aforementioned TV shows are viable news shows; I feel that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert dilute the news through humor and intense bias. My diligent viewing of these Comedy Central staples probably doesn't give me credence to say confidentely, "I know what is going on in the world, and I have an intelligent opinion for all of it." Granted, very few people in this country could truthfully say that anyway, but that is an entirely different blog for an entirely different time.

To me, being conservative-raised (recently turned more liberal), I find most of what I watch on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report or read in The Rolling Stone to be quite liberal. So while I enjoy these media outlets, I more-or-less tune them out; because I don't agree with much of what they say. Even though I now find myself sharing views with a liberal side, my involuntary reaction to liberal-biased media is quite extreme. Regardless of whatever moral inclinations I may have, my point is that I cannot seriously consider media that is not objective. I find that I can really trust what I read in The Republic to be unbiased; thus, I find myself to be most influenced by newspaper articles. Anything else, even an article with a conservative voice, will shut down any intellectual processing.

Still, I see no solution to the issue of bias within Journalism. (Come to think of it, there must be a problem in order to come up with a solution.) When conservatives complain about unobjectivity, the only result will be over-conservative media, and vice-versa with liberals. Ironically, I find myself being best explained by The Daily Show (link).

Looking online, I found some pretty intense articles on media bias; not many of which were friendly toward journalists. The first paragraph of this blog from Jim McFarlane; "It's becoming ridiculous how far you can get in life without having to think for yourself. Of course, we have the media to thank for this. The manipulative, manipulated media. That horrible liberal media. That dastardly conservative bias. Pick your poison, and either one is dead-on," he is not really a fan of bias (link). Unbiased media is more of a black sheep than I ever would've guessed; no one has anything good to say about it. In an ARS Technica open forum, the user Digitali says, "You won't find unbiased media, mainstream or otherwise.The best you can do is get stories from both (or more) biased sides and form your own opinion," and that, my friends, is about as optimistic as it gets for unbiased media (link). Take a gander at the full articles if you feel so inspired.