I thought the Cliff Kincaid article was rather interesting. I think it is interesting that Fox news withheld comments Jesse Jackson made that would put Obama in a good light when they have not been hesitatent about reporting rumors that clearly damage Obama’s image. On the flip side I think it is interesting that Kincaid makes a comment about the inability of Fox news or Matt Drudge to say anything about Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis. Kincaid clearly believes having a communist “mentor” early on in his life would potential effect his current ideology. I think it is a stretch of him to think that just because the media has not brought up Davis they are all pro-Obama trying to conceal some dark past. What I don’t understand is the significance of this Davis connection. Even if Davis was an avid communist supporter that doesn’t mean that Obama’s affiliation with him makes him a communist. I bet if any of us looked into our past we would find associations maybe even friendships with people who had extremely different political and religious beliefs than us. So what is the big deal?

 

It is interesting that 15,000 angry letters appeared the day after main stream media took shots to question Obama’s patriotism. It really does show that there is a new era of online political activism. The most fascinating part of the article however, is the fact that Blue State Digital has created an online letter format so an upset reader just has to enter their zip code and name to send a pre written letter of complaint about what the newspaper had published. They don’t have to even write out what they are complaining about. I think this is interesting because it gives a majority of people who may have been angry about something that was written in the past but who were too lazy to actually write a letter of complaint a way to send a complaint in three simple clicks. So in that sense it makes it even easier for lazy people to complain. On the other hand it is an easy way to mobilize a large portion of the blogosphere to create a positive change. I did find it interesting that half the letters sent did not use this pre-text they wrote the body of the letter themselves. It is difficult to say whether or not this new online letter format inspired those people to take action though.

The “Who is Barack Obama” E-mail was very angering. I know that the e-mail is blatantly ridiculous but it scares me that people maybe not educated about the candidates enough to know that will look at it as factual. What drives me the most crazy is the statement about him being a Muslim. Why in a country founded by those seeking religious freedom, that has no national religion, and laws protecting the establishment of religion would the religion of a presidential candidate possible matter? I think that in 2008 it is pathetic for this democratic nation to have prejudice against an entire religion just because they don’t understand it.

I think there was an interesting choice of video clips of the VP debate posted on TPM. I particularly liked the one of Palin’s response what we should do about countries with nuclear weapons and she just goes off saying can we talk about Afghanistan a minute into her response. Obviously TPM is a left leaning site and is therefore going to post clips that make Palin look like she doesn’t know what she was talking about, but from someone who watched the whole debate those clips weren’t hard to find. 

Ironically I thought the Vice Presidential debate was much more entertaining to watch than the presidential debate (quite possibly due to all the hype surrounding it beforehand).  I think Biden was a more powerful speaker and I think he really stuck it to Palin when he talked about McCain’s healthcare plan being the “ultimate bridge to Nowhere.”

The Shelter article along with the recent class discussions has made me start to rethink the power of independent media. With so many journalists flooding the airwaves of main stream media with their horseracing coverage, leaving the actual reporting to the independent bloggers it often left me asking so what? The real information is out there but it is hidden behind the New York Times and CNN and Washington Posts of the country. Where  do I find it? Is it even being read by anyone anyway?

 

Shelter’s article discussed the power of networking and information sharing sites like youtube and facebook. It is encouraging to know that 2/3 of people under the age of 30 are getting information in this way. I read in one of my other classes that of all the people using the internet in the U.S. nearly ¼ are 17 or younger. I am happy to know that the information posted on these blogs is actually finding a way to an audience; a younger one but a growing one nonetheless. When I stopped and think about it only two weeks ago I was sitting in a Park Lab surfing youtube with my cousin who was up visiting me for the weekend. I showed her some of the clips we had seen in class regarding Palin and in turn she showed me a half dozen clips that I had never seen. I forget sometimes that we have that ability to seek out information and share it that easily via the Internet.

 

I remember hearing about the huffintonpost  story. I happen to agree that in today’s day in age everything a politician says is on the record. Yes, her article did not portray Obama in a favorable light, but just because she is a supporter does not mean everything she writes about him has to be favorable. Isn’t that the point of objective reporting? Being able to separate your bias from reporting on the situation for what it is. I don’t think every journalist going into campaign territory has to identify themselves as journalists, but in this case they all knew she was a journalist for the huffingtonpost. Bottom line if Obama didn’t want the comment he made to be heard, then he shouldn’t have said it.

 

I expected the audio of Bill Clinton calling the reporter of vanity Fair a scumbag to be much worse. I didn’t read the vanity fair article so I’m not sure whether or not the reporter was honest or completely did fabricate the story. Now I’m saying that even if he did do dishonest reporting that warrants the former president calling him those names. It is just the way Fowler’s article made it sound like he was just sitting there calling this guy all these names, when in fact you listen to the audio you hear a man obviously upset and disappointed he was portrayed like that and it is hurting his wife’s campaign so he got carried away and made some comments he should not have made.

 

I think the way that Fowler worded her question made it a loaded question because she wanted to get a certain type of response. It wasn’t exactly professional but I’m not sure if I would consider it unethical. I have seen journalist ask questions that almost reinstate an attack someone else made about the person in order to get a really emotional response. I remember watching Diane Sawyer ask Martha Stewart “Why do people hate you?” during a sit down interview after Stewart was accused of insider trading. Honestly what kind of question is that? I think Stewart answered with an I don’t know, which is really the only way to answer a loaded question like that without seeming completely vain or admitting to flaws.

I made an executive decision not to watch any of the after debate coverage because I knew it would bother me more than the actual debate.  From the readings we did for class it was easy to predict that it would be a lot of coverage about the body language or the way a candidate was standing rather than anything factual about what was actually said. I checked TPM today, which only confirmed this statement. There is a video posted on TPM about a commentator on MSNBC going on for two minutes about how John McCain did not make eye contact with Obama. Was he angry? Was he trying to belittle his opponent? What I want to know is what questions like that have to do with the actual debate. I think this is a classic case of large media refusing to actually make a point of addressing the issues for whatever reason and instead choosing to conveniently play the “who looks like they won” card. What I found most upsetting was that an independent site like TPM played into it by posting readers own comments about McCain’s lack of eye contact. One reader actually said that McCain could not look at Obama because he was afraid of him. Really??

Frankly I was disappointed with the Friday night debate. I think the both candidates said a lot of the same things. Both agreed that the economy was in crisis, both blamed the other for the situation and both promised to cut spending to solve the problem. This is not at all surprising in fact I believe this is quite typical of politicians. What was upsetting was watching Jim Lehrer ask his questions. None of the questions asked actually called out either politician on their previous records. It should not be left to the politicians to call out the voting records of their opponents. I think if Lehrer asked questions pertaining to each candidates individual record the debate would have been much more informative and entertaining for the public to watch.