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.