New York Times takes a tip from YouTube
I was just scanning the New York Times website, looking for something of interest to post about, when I stumbled across an embedded video in the margin of the U.S. Politics page. The video is called “Republican Debate: Analyzing the Details”. Not only is there a video transcript and an accompanying text transcript, but the debate has been conveniently divided up into clickable sections, such as: “Republicans vs. Hillary Clinton,” “Health Care,” and “Who’s More Conservative?” Also, the good people at the New York Times have included a transcript analyzer, which lists the exact number of words spoken by each participant (excluding the moderator, Rudy Guiliani tops the list with 2158, while Jim Greer and Charlie Crist each have a measly 60), and which visually breaks up the debate into a weird, bar code-esque format. Talk about user-friendly.
When YouTube first exploded into the internet scene, being able to watch a news clip or political debate through a website at one’s leisure was an exciting novelty. Later, as we learned from guest speaker James Kotecki, YouTube began to transform from a sort of political vessel into a political instigator. Now it appears as though the trend is catching on. I have no idea whether or not New York Times Online has been posting videos for a while now, but regardless–it’s fascinating to see to what extent news sources are now attempting to cater to their readers. Now, not only are you not obligated to plan your evening around a scheduled debate, but you don’t even have to watch all of it to find out what candidates said about issues that concern you.
The only negative aspect of this sort of convenience that I can see is that it could perpetuate–and probably even intensify–the closed-mindedness present in many debate watchers. When these people watch entire debates, they may choose to ignore opposing viewpoints regarding topics about which they’ve already made up their minds, but at least they’re exposed to these opposing viewpoints. If more and more people are electing to pick and choose what pieces of the debates they’d like to see, then it will become less and less likely for watchers on each side of the political spectrum to challenge what they already believe.
WANTED (Dead or Alive): Modern Political Debate
While I can’t say that I was overly thrilled with or impressed by Rick Tyler’s discussion, I was intrigued by what he had to say about political debate reform. But before I delve into his propositions, let me begin by affirming my overwhelming dislike for the modern concept of a political debate. Every t
ime I sit down to watch a debate (which is rare, sporadic, and generally only within a month of an election), I find that by the end of the night I’m just as disappointed as I’d expected. Rarely, if ever, do I gain insight into a candidate’s character, or learn something about them that I couldn’t have read, verbatim, from their campaign website. Usually each candidate is allowed so many seconds to respond to a carefully crafted and premeditated question that doesn’t come from their opponent, but rather, from an unaffiliated third party. Is this crazy, or am I?? I want to see the candidates and the candidates alone conversing with each other, asking the tough questions, and being capable of co
ming up with the clever answers on the spot. Leave the mediator at home, please. Cut the strict time limits and the tedious rules. I want to see a raw presentation of the person who could potentially be the next “leader of the free world,” (as Tyler referred to it through thinly veiled conservativism).
This brings me to Tyler’s theory of debate reform. Though he devoted a shockingly small portion of his speech to this topic (the drawings on the blackboard didn’t suffice for me), I thought he made some valid points. First of all, I agree, to an extent, that political debate between members of the same party can seem redundant and overtly liberal or conservative. I do not, however, think that this type of debate should be eliminated from the campaign process altogether. I think that this type of debate is fundamental and crucial for each party in determining who is best suited for the race, but I think there is definitely room for reform. Tyler went on to suggest that political debate should consist of one candidate from each party, on a stage, partaking in a healthy, unscripted, unsupervised debate. I definitely agree with this theory, and I look forward to the day that this debate takes place. However, I want to add to this dream and suggest that every candidate, and yes that includes candidates of the somewhat taboo parties such as the Libertarian or Green Party, be a participant in our nation’s notorious prime time debates. I think that all candidates, regardless of the status of their membership in mainstream parties, are deserving of our country’s attention and time. Needless to say, I hope to see in 2008 a variety of candidates in the debate scene, and with any luck, a lot less of the unnecessary mediator.
Not so revolutionary protest
A handful of protests were staged over the past few days in D.C. The protests were aimed at a slew of issues, including the war in Iraq and climate change, according to the Washington Post. Of course, dissident voices from the public are an important element of meaningful political debate; but, with so few palpable consequences, you really have to weigh the merits of public demonstration.
This isn’t to say public involvement is futile, but frankly, an organized march in downtown D.C. just seems like old hat. Nothing is less revolutionary than a well-planned gathering. According to the Post, Monday’s protest at Capitol Hill resulted in 59 arrests — that’s at least 59 people who care enough about the issues to put themselves at the hands of police. But how much news coverage did the protest result in?
The news media is supposed to provide the public with information they need to make decisions in their lives (according to a journalism professor here at AU. Thanks.) So, does the lack of coverage of these protests indicate that the news media doesn’t think they’re important? Can the public go on with their lives without knowing about them?
Maybe so. When there’s seemingly (and sometimes literally) another protest every week, it’s not really newsworthy. Maybe it’s time for the public to use more creative methods for getting dissident voices heard. It seems to me that the Internet is a much more effective platform for protest. Sure, you can’t replicate the visual of thousands of people coming together for a cause, but these days, who even cares to look?
Colbert ’08
Last Tuesday, comedian Stephen Colbert announced that he was running for President in South Carolina on his late-night show The Colbert Report. A clip of his appearance with Jon Stewart (in which he spoke of running) can be watched at
http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118625
Colbert will be running under both the Republican and Democratic parties in his home-state and, providing he files the correct paperwork by November 1st, will appear on the ballot.
While his sudden foray into the world of politics isn’t necessarily surprising, it’s definitely a humorous turn to the 2008 presidential elections. Stephen Colbert is not a serious candidate for the coveted title of Commander-In-Chief. He has said, since announcing his intentions to run, that he doesn’t want to be elected President—he simply wants to run for President. When asked who will be his running-mate, he suggested such politicians as Larry Craig, who was recently embroiled in a sex scandal.
The candidacy of Stephen Colbert is, sadly enough, not going to impact the outcome of the actual elections in the slightest. It is his way of poking fun at the absurdity that is the American political machine. Constitutionally, there is nothing about Stephen Colbert that makes him unfit to be President. I personally think he could bring a much-needed sense of humor that is currently lacking from the presidency. A shift of perspective from politician to comedian might help revitalize the political infrastructure in the White House.
Stephen Colbert is truly a candidate without any political bias—the only views he represents are his own. His ultra-conservative caricature serves to both make fun of Democrats and Republicans. His goals are best put in his own words: “If, at the Democratic National Convention, somebody has to stand up and say, ‘the proud state of South Carolina, the palmetto state, the home of the greatest peaches and shrimp in the world, casts one vote for native son, Stephen Colbert,’ I’d say I won.”
Sexism in the Media
If the above video doesn’t work, the link is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU
I am in class right now that is mainly a study of feminism, so my sexism radar is highly tuned. After watching this video, I realized that feminism is still alive and well in the media.
The fact that this video cut out everything that Hilary Clinton had to say at this rally and focused entirely on her “rudeness” shows the lack of support that this particular media group has for a female president.
Also, the video showed the vast female support that Hilary has, and none of the male support. By no means am I a supporter of Hilary Clinton, not because I don’t want a female president, but I’m just not interested in politics.
I, however, think its sad that the bias in media is so clear in a report like this. The role of a journalist is to be objective at all times, this report is not objective at all and shows the failure of mainstream media to hold up to its own standards.
I believe it is important that the flaws in candidates should be shown, but it should be fair ground. Hilary Clinton definitely has her flaws, but the reason this rally was staged was to discuss her main issues for her presidential candidacy. That is the news and should definitely be incorporated.
I’m not saying that the fact that Hilary “ignored” questions is not news, because presidential candidates have a duty to the public and should be informing them at all times, however, it is more important that her viewpoints on delivered to the public as well as her mistakes.
Maybe, this feminism class has gone to my head, who knows? But I couldn’t help but notice the bias in this particular media publication.
Long Blog — Humor Group
I am in the humor group for the blog. I think humor is really important in every day life, but it is especially significant when it comes to politics. Many people (myself included) are really bored by politics and tune it out. By adding a little humor, people become more interested and actually want to read or learn more about it.
The best example of political humor, at least for me, is John Stewart. I watch The Daily Show all the time and it literally makes me laugh out loud. People can feel put off my politics because they don’t understand it – at least that’s my reason – but by making fun of current events, The Daily Show makes me feel like I can understand it because it’s on my level. Politics is no longer some intangible, ambiguous “thing.”
An example of John Stewart’s humor, as if none of you guys have watched The Daily Show, is here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=119424
Stewart’s “R. Kelly Impersonator” makes fun of Larry Craig’s bathroom scandal.
Stephen Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” is also really funny. Here is a clip from Colbert’s show earlier this week, after he announced his goal to run as president of the United States: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118636
There’s another funny Colbert clip, where the host fills out papers that he needs to fill out for the primary: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118638
I think that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s shows are really important because although they seem stupid, they actually spark the interest of people like me…Who otherwise really wouldn’t be interested or care about politics.
Force the Candidates to TALK!
Today I had the honor of listening to a brilliant and well-informed individual in my Dissident Media class, his name Rick Tyler, the press secretary for Newt Gingrich.
Recently Gingrich has challenged the potential candidates for president to open debates modeling the debates that Lincoln and Douglass had. He is calling for a Cooper Union Debate among the potential candidates for president.
Tyler said, “We need to come up with ways that force candidates to talk about the issues.”
What a brilliant idea!
This evening I am going to embrace that challenge and list some ways we can force our potential candidates for president to talk about the issues.
First I think the open forum, no rules debates are crucial. The two chosen candidates for the presidency need to discuss the issues face-to-face. Give the voters a reason to vote. Let us know what you think and how you are going to better this country. I am sick and tired of hearing about how flawed the competitions campaign is. Stop playing the limelight on the opposition. Shine the light on your views on the issues. That is what America is looking for.
Another way we can get candidates to talk about the issues is to start holding them to what they are publicly displaying, for instance, their websites. Look at them. Search their websites for their views and if they are not there be the watch dog yourself and call it to their attention. If we American’s stand up as united front to these candidates they can only hide behind their thirty second blurbs about the issues so for long.
Finally let’s take it to the Internet. Everyone is on the Internet, so let’s start getting the word out.
This blog was created to raise awareness to the people of this wonderful country that we need to stop settling for lame responses to important questions that effect our every day lives.
Who is voted in as the next president will have the power to change this country forever and I personally want that change to benefit me too.
So people of America let’s take it to the candidates! Let’s force them to have a real voice not the voice of the person putting the dollars in their pockets but a voice on the issues that affect us all.
News Media, Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debate
Rick Tyler, press secretary for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, spoke today in our Dissident Media class at American University.
Currently Tyler is working as a senior partner at Chesapeake Associates, a professional campaign consulting firm based in Washington D.C. He has experience working with various politicians, and thus plenty of experience working with the media.
Mr. Tyler addressed several issues of importance to modern American society; his main focus was identical to the focus of our blog, how do we renew real, open political debate in today’s society? He described the current political debates as “Nine candidates lining up like seals waiting for the commentator to throw a fish.” Mr. Tyler felt current debating rules need to be changed. He mentioned that currently the rule book contains some 39 pages of regulations, which include rules as to the type of pencil a candidate may use. “These candidates are basically applying to be the leader of the free world,” Mr. Taylor said, adding that 30 seconds for a candidate to discuss his views on the Iraq War is not nearly enough. Mr. Tyler instead recommended having two candidates, preferably from different parties so a sense of bi-partisanship can be achieved, placed on stage together for a ninety minute discussion. The moderator would play a small part, more of a time-keeper than a mediator.
Mr. Tyler also addressed the role the media plays in our current political atmosphere. Clearly, the media plays an important role in our society, and Mr. Taylor suggested using that to our advantage. One specific example he gave of how to use the media to the average voters’ advantage was to institute a weekly blind poll. Candidates’ stances on the important issues would be collected and each week a poll would be published that voters could take to see which candidate’s platform they are most closely aligned with. The media would then announce the results of these blind polls at the end of each week to see who had been the most successful. This would give voters more of a voice within the political sphere, as candidates would have to adjust their platforms to appeal to a wider audience.
To conclude Mr. Tyler discussed the importance of frank debate to America. Mr. Tyler said he feels that without real debate America will eventually fall apart. I would tend to agree our guest speaker’s views, unless some changes are enacted, and some form of real debate is achieved, American society will suffer.
Rick Tyler’s ideas
Rick Tyler, spokesman for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, has some excellent ideas on how to fix America’s broken system. His lecture in class today was extremely enlightening and set the ground work for some great ideas that we can implement that could affect the political system.
Mr. Tyler’s comments on the media’s role in debates are well heeded. Instead of allowing the news outlets to focus on pointless news stories: Britney, Paris, etc, we should instead force them onto coverage of actual issues. There are several ways we, as students an bloggers, can achieve this. The number 1 way is to boycott the news networks and begin a grassroots initiative to keep the boycott strong. If successful, this movement would force change in the way news, and political debates are covered. Without viewers, networks would lack the ability to advertise and therefore make money. Viewers would only come back once coverage was changed. Instead of letting the media control our news, we should begin to take steps to influence the media so they actually cover things of worth.
Mr. Tyler also suggested the use of blind polls in order to actually determine which candidates have a stance on the important issues in society. This is a much better approach to determine candidate positions than our current form of debate. What we are given now are simple sound bites and rehearsed speeches that actually contain nothing of substance. These polls, on the back of one-on-one bipartisan debates, would be a much better value for the American people than our current system. If the media and candidates were able to implement this system, we would be one step closer to fixing our broken political system.
Though he spoke about a great deal about other things, these two topics are of supreme importance. If we change the way in which news is expressed, and the manner in which the candidates debate, we will be that much closer to fixing the broken American political system. Mr. Tyler’s observances as to the problems of modern political society have laid the groundwork for a plethora of ideas that we can implement in order to affect change. All we have to do is run with it.
Rick Tyler and Renewing Poltical Debates
Rick Tyler is the Director of Media Relations for Gingrich Communications and serves as the spokesman for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich . He is also a senior partner at Chesapeake Associates, a full service professional campaign consulting firm based in Washington, DC. Today, Tyler came into Professor Walker’s class at American University to talk about campaign and debate reform ideas. Here is the gist of what he had to say:
While reminiscing about the Kennedy-Douglas debates, Tyler made it clear that the television is the dominate medium today. Whether it be through video on the internet or the actual t.v., a candidate’s presentation is vital in any campaign. In asking the class what was wrong with today’s political debate, people in the crowd all shared the same opinion that candidates seem rehearsed; they don’t have any personal insight and don’t come off as personable, therefore projecting a rather stale image.
The subject of Tyler’s presentation soon turned to reformed debate. He echoed Newt Gingrich’s plan to renew political debate in America. Through bi-partisan debate with less limitations Tyler believes American politics would greatly change. If candidates debated in a bi-partisan manner they no longer would have to pledge to follow every value of their party. Candidates would be forced to try and appeal to America as a whole, therefore opening up the door to connecting to the many voters who are in the middle. Tyler discussed Gingrich’s plan and outline for the Cooper Union Debates. Gingrich invited all of the presidential candidates to participate. So far only Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee have responded. The debate would be 90 minutes long and only feature a time keeper. “It would be an adult discussion,” said Tyler, when referring to the renewed political debate. Both Gingrich and Tyler believe this form of debate would change the face of politics and campaigning in America.
The outline of the debate would be as follows: Tyler would like to see the 2 presidential candidates once they are selected by their party partake in 9, 90 minute debates. There would be one a week in the time span after the party conventions and before the November election. The press would no longer set the agenda, and this way candidates could now get to the issues with thought out, thorough positions.
Tyler isn’t quite sure if this next presidential election has any hope, but he is optimistic that people will catch on and that things will change. “We are in a period of consultant driven campaigns,” said Tyler when describing today’s political process. Campaigns start so early because of this. Candidates focus all their attention on raising money and gaining support. “The most valuable asset a candidate has is their thinking and planning time for the future,” remarked Tyler. Candidates become utterly exhausted after months and month of begging for money and lose this time. How can it then be expected that they have articulated thoughtful positions?
Tyler turned the floor over to questions from the class to end his presentation. Here are some of the major insights.
1) The media does have an obligation to the public to bring up issues that many people may not know about or care about. But the media is driven by profits, which are driven by ratings, so many of these issues have no relevance to thoughtful political discussion.
2)In terms of campaign finance reform, Tyler would like to see no limits, period. Candidates should be able to receive as much money as possible from a donor as long as it is immediately made public on the internet.
3)Blind issue polls would be a great way to bring attention to positions rather than candidates. This way people necessarily wouldn’t be blinded by party affiliation or a person’s name. If blind issue polls were taken each week and the media followed them then candidates would undoubtedly be more vocal about their stances on certain issues.
All in all, it was rather interesting to hear Tyler’s take on debate and campaign reform ideas. He echoed many of his bosses ideas. Time will only tell if these ideas can be placed into action.
M. Appeal (Mass Appeal) 
