Cranky Doc's

To be a real establishment journalist (objective), you're not allowed to say when one side is lying -- even when they are. All you're allowed to do is repeat what both sides say and leave it at that (Colbert: "The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home"). Froomkin -- unlike David Gregory -- believes that reporters should actually point out when the Government is lying. That's what he did. That's why, to The Post, he wasn't a real reporter but, rather, an "ideologue." That's the sickness of American journalism in a nutshell.
Then there's Froomkin's freakish, exotic belief that journalists should be adversarial to and skpetical of the claims of government officials, especially when it comes to matters of war and national security. See his superb guidelines for press skepticism of government claims ("You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority"); his criticisms of the establishment media for uncritically reporting Bush claims about the Iranian threat; his blistering critique of the failures of the media in the run-up to the Iraq War; and his criticism of Tim Russert's protection of political power. Skepticism towards -- rather than mindless repeating of -- the claims of the political establishment is almost as severe a sin in modern journalism as pointing out when government officials are lying.
And then, most ironically (given John Harris' accusations that he's not objective), is Froomkin's insistence on treating all politicians the same -- subjecting all political leaders to adversarial journalistic scrutiny rather than declaring himself on one side or the other and spouting standard partisan talking points. He couldn't be pigeonholed as reflexively pro-Bush or pro-Obama -- i.e., he has intellectual and journalistic integrity -- and therefore confused the mind-numbing little formula used to simplify and deaden our political debates.

Read the whole thing.

Thin Opinion

2009-05-01T09:10:00.003-04:00

Via Kevin Drum:

This is a fascinating example of just how thin opinion polling like this is. The real lesson here is that most people haven't given this issue even a few seconds thought, and their response to the poll question is practically meaningless. Faced with even the slightest pushback, large majorities of both supporters and opponents flipped their views almost instantly.

Send Specialists, Not Generalists

2009-04-29T09:40:00.001-04:00

Dan Froomkin:

President Obama holds a prime-time press conference tomorrow night to mark his 100th day in office, and if the major news organizations really want to make it interesting, they won’t send their White House corrrespondents.

No, I’m not suggesting a boycott. What I’m proposing is that, depending on what they want to probe, news organizations should send the beat reporters — or even columnists — who have the deepest knowledge and expertise in the subject at hand.

This would not only result in more probing questions, but more thoughtful and challenging follow-ups. What I want to see are tough, detailed exchanges driven by people who really know what they’re talking about and aren’t too intimidated to push back and drill down when necessary.

So if the New York Times or The Washington Post decide that their top priority tomorrow night is to probe Obama about his highly speculative bank bailout proposals, they should send someone who could really mix it up with the president — like Paul Krugman, or Steven Pearlstein.

If they decide the most important thing is to pin Obama down on his views on accountability for torture, they should send Scott Shane, or Joby Warrick.

If the goal is getting Obama to explain his thinking on complicated policy matters, to push him beyond the things he’s said before, to call him out when he’s being vague, or he’s exaggerating, or he’s just dead wrong — then it’s time to call in the experts.

White House correspondents, by contrast, are generalists — and most of them are former political reporters. They tend to focus on how politically effective the president is being rather than whether he is intellectually consistent, whether his positions are realistic, and whether his explanations are sufficient. They are also beholden to the press office for the continued access they need to do their jobs. . . .

Read the rest.

Nate on Race at TED

2009-04-24T12:49:00.001-04:00

The Media and Torture

2009-04-24T10:58:00.001-04:00

Go. Read.

Greenwald and Goodman

2009-04-20T10:06:00.001-04:00

At the Izzy Awards.

More from PEW

2009-04-18T10:16:00.000-04:00

The internet and the 2008 (Presidential) campaign.

"The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers"

2009-03-27T12:39:00.002-04:00

From Nichols & McChesney. Article here. Interview here. Both are worth the time.

State of the News Media

2009-03-17T10:47:00.003-04:00

The 2009 Report, from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Stewart Smackdown

2009-03-13T11:19:00.004-04:00

Jon Stewart takes on business reporting below (for unedited versions of the full interview, go here).

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Intro - Brawl Street: Get Ready to Buy Low! And Sell Die

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

UPDATE: From Jay Ackroyd: "So we're at the point that a comedian has to take a break from fart sounds and funny faces to dish out some journalism. Because otherwise, there isn't any? Journalism, that is."

UPDATE II: From Glenn Greenwald:

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

Read the Rest HERE.

The Politics of Seating Charts

2009-03-09T12:57:00.001-04:00

Go see Nate, for what's going on here:

Media, Recession and Poverty

2009-02-25T12:01:00.001-05:00

From FAIR and Neil deMause, with special guest appearance. . . . .

Reformation versus Transformation?

2009-02-16T11:53:00.003-05:00

Of late, we've seen a resurgence on the political left of the term "progressive." This I've found problematic, in no small part because even during the so-called Progressive Era, there was no single progressivism, but many (often contradictory) progressivisms. Nate Silver suggests we distinguish between two strains of modern progressivism -- the rational and the radical. In some ways, he's really reaching back to an older distinction between urban progressivism and rural populism, but there's more at work here. I find a lot to argue with in his formulation, but you should click through and read his post. His summary chart below.

Problems with Polling, Part 427

2009-02-06T09:23:00.002-05:00

From Pollster.com:

Much of what pollsters offer to the world as "public opinion" is in reality hypothetical, based on giving respondents information that many in the general public may not have and then immediately asking respondents for their reaction to that information.

Such results can be illuminating, but pollsters recognize that feeding respondents information means the sample no longer represents the American public and what Mark calls its "pre-existing" opinion. Unfortunately, many pollsters fail to acknowledge the hypothetical nature of such results, and instead treat them as though they represent the current state of the public's views.

The problem with this kind of approach is illustrated in the case that Mark discussed in his post, dealing with the "card check" bill, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) concerning the authorization of unions in the workplace.

The vast majority of Americans, one can reasonably assume, have little to no knowledge of the provisions of the bill. Thus, to measure "public opinion" on the issue, pollsters feel they need to tell respondents what the bill is all about. A Republican pollster explained the bill one way, a Democratic pollster another way, and - to no one's surprise - they ended up with a "public opinion" that reflected their respective party's position on the issue.

While one may argue the relative merits of the questions used by the two pollsters, the main point is that informing the public of any major policy proposal is intrinsically biased. Pollsters have to decide what is important among all the various elements of the proposal, and they can often come up with quite different conclusions. This problem applies to public policy pollsters as well, who - we can reasonably assume - have no partisan agenda, but who nevertheless can produce what appear to be partisan results.

Such problems have multiplied with the recent public policy polling on the bailout proposals for Wall Street and for the auto industry, and on the stimulus plan being considered by Congress. Most pollsters assume the public has little specific knowledge of such proposals, and thus pollsters provide respondents specific information to measure the public's (hypothetical) reaction to the proposal.

When CNN described the proposal to bailout the auto industry by characterizing it as "loans in order to prevent them from going into bankruptcy," in exchange for which the companies would produce plans "that show how they would become viable businesses in the long run," it found a 26-point margin in favor (63 percent to 37 percent). But when an ABC/Washington Post poll only a few days earlier had mentioned the word "bailout" in its question and did not refer to plans leading to the companies becoming viable, the poll showed a 13-point majority against the proposal (55 percent to 42 percent).

Again, one can debate the relative merits of the two questions, but the tendency of pollsters is to say that each set of results provides different insights into the dynamics of the public's views on this matter. In short, each provides a picture of potential public reaction to the proposal, if the proposal is framed to the general public in the way each polling organization presented the issue to its respondents.

That distinction is generally lost in the news reports. . . .

Photographers Discuss Their Photos: Bush Era

2009-01-29T17:16:00.000-05:00

Fascinating.

Media Bias?

2009-01-29T08:44:00.002-05:00

More here

Footnote of the Day

2009-01-21T16:17:00.000-05:00

Article here:

¹ Real Social Scientific Data is a term of art here, which covers the broad category of ‘statistics that are sufficiently entertaining that I really don’t want to look at them too hard.’ This understanding of data is commonly applied (especially in the popular press, but often enough in academia too), although rarely acknowledged in explicit terms.

The Practice of Control and False Narratives?

2009-01-19T12:45:00.000-05:00

Press coverage in the Bush Era:

Live, from DC, it's Tuesday Afternoon

2009-01-18T13:08:00.000-05:00

Three Spheres

2009-01-13T12:44:00.002-05:00

From Jay Rosen:

. . . one of the problems with our political press is that its reference group for establishing the “ground” of consensus is the insiders: the professional political class in Washington. It then offers that consensus to the country as if it were the country’s own, when it’s not, necessarily. This erodes confidence in a way that may be invisible to journalists behaving as insiders themselves. And it gives the opening to Jon Stewart and his kind to exploit that gap I talked about between making news and making sense. . . .
Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.

In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

Read the rest.

Keys to Successful Punditry

2009-01-13T10:50:00.002-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Pundit School

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Media Coverage of Gaza and the Economy

2009-01-09T08:07:00.003-05:00

Blame it on Your Childhood

2009-01-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

Some recent scholarship on why people vote.

Some Choice Bits

2009-01-01T02:40:00.001-05:00

In no order, and without attribution (you'll have to read your colleagues' posts to find out), here are a few selections from your final exam thingies that I thought especially noteworthy:

One can make the argument, I believe, that in this election season the Tocquevillian motivation and the mimetic attempt to replicate the beliefs of the audience, conjoined. Because paranoia and suspicion towards the nominees for President was so rampant (at least so vocal) among the populace, the media could both replicate those arguments and use them as challenges towards the government. Possibly Tocqueville may have argued that even paranoid suspicion towards the government can play a role in challenging that authority. As the adversarial role is one of power (that increases or decreases as the central government and personal freedom fluxes), that power can be expressed in inanities as well as legitimate challenges. I argue though that this mimetic reproduction of ground roots paranoia in fact delegitimizes the press and those concerns. Power is siphoned and not maintained when those stories are brought up. [This is the] pseudo-journalism of paranoid media.

The media's role is defined by the perception of its viewers. If the people view the media as a poor check on government, it is in effect a poor check on government.

The facts are clear: the media failed to discredit the George W. Bush’s claim that Iraq had WMD, a claim later proven false. Massing and Boehling [Boehlert?] detail how this occurred: the press allowed itself to report falsehoods (therefore failing to uphold being reporters of objective fact) by refusing to investigate the administrations shakier claims (casting aside its duty as a neutral advocate) and stymied dissenting voices (transgressing the commandment to encourage public discussion). It is less clear how the fourth [profit-seeking] and fifth [propagandizing] [of Leighley's models] interacted in 2003, but the presence of both is a certainty. Regardless, the failure of America’s linkage institution resulted in the subservience of democracy; the country embarked on a war informed citizenry would not have fought.

No matter how loud and intense the national conversation gets, it is useless if it get drowned out by an incompetent election process.

[Because] [m]oney buys access. . . some Americans have their voices heard louder th[a]n others. The idea of the media inspiring a national conversation on policy seems futile if the voices of the public do not carry equal weight.

The media is a failed state.

[G]overnment doesn’t use these tools to CONVEY their messages, the[y] use [them] to CONVINCE the public that their ideas and policies should be supported.

Perhaps by complicating the nature of the event itself, of the public discourse, American's can solve the problem that mainstream media posses to democracy. In order for that to occur though, access to politics needs to change. In order to elevate the discourse, more people and more divergent opinions have to somehow enter into the national conversation. Otherness, in a sense, needs to be incorporated into the American dialogue. . . . By opening the inauguration to otherness [in the form of Pastor Rick Warren], by forcing mainstream media to cover a dialogue, by forcing conversation (even if mediated) between liberals and conservatives, pastors and gays, Obama has complicated the American narrative. This is an education for all sides of American values. This is an elevation of the American discourse. . . Exposure, not isolation, is the mechanic of American democracy.

But my favorite line, I have to say, is this:

I expected Rage Against the Machine and got Nickelback.

I hope your semester was more the former than the latter.

The Inevitably Unnecessary Reminder

2008-12-30T11:57:00.003-05:00

Exams due tomorrow, posted to your blog between 9:45-10:00 PM only.

Rise of the Machines

2008-12-30T11:56:00.000-05:00

NYT meets SkyNet?

Already, complex algorithms — programming often placed under the over-colorful umbrella of "artificial intelligence" — are used to gather content for Web sites like Google News, which serves up a wide selection of journalism online, without much intervention from actual journalists. Hamilton sees a not-too-distant future in which that process would be extended, with algorithms mining information from multiple sources and using it to write parts of articles or even entire personalized news stories.

Hamilton offers a theoretical example, taking off from EveryBlock, the set of Web sites masterminded by Adrian Holovaty, one of the true pioneers of database journalism and a former innovation editor at washingtonpost.com. If you live in one of the 11 American cities EveryBlock covers, you now can enter your address, and the site gives you civic information (think building permits, police reports and so on), news reports, blog items and other Web-based information, such as consumer reviews and photos, all connected to your immediate geographic neighborhood. In the not-too-distant future, Hamilton suggests, an algorithm could take information from EveryBlock and other database inputs and actually write articles personalized to your neighborhood and your interests, giving you, for example, a story about crime in your neighborhood this week and whether it has increased or decreased in relation to a month or a year ago.

Very, Very Snarky

2008-12-27T15:39:00.001-05:00

Glenn Greenwald on Politico's Top 10 Political Scoops of 2008.

"I used to think the internet was an old wives' tale!"

2008-12-24T11:24:00.001-05:00

This is some of what you have learned this semester. . . . .

h/t Sullivan

Golden Duke Nominees: Ads

2008-12-24T10:35:00.000-05:00

Happy Festivus

2008-12-23T09:38:00.001-05:00

Commence with the Airing of Grievances in comments. . . .

On Online Commentary and Political Debate

2008-12-20T12:08:00.002-05:00

"Could We Uncover Watergate Today?"

2008-12-20T10:47:00.001-05:00

From the WaPo:

Reporters working today on a story such as Watergate would be unlikely to be left relatively alone, along with their sources, for as long as Bob and Carl were. Now, from day one, the story would be all over the Internet, and hordes of reporters and bloggers would immediately join the chase. The story would become fodder for around-the-clock argument among the blowhards on cable television and the Internet. Opinion polls would be constantly stirring up and measuring the public's reaction.

So the conspiracy and the cover-up would unravel much more quickly -- and their political impact would probably be felt much sooner. Nixon was re-elected five months after the burglary in 1972, and Watergate was not much of an issue during the campaign. That would not happen today.

In an age when the media have been turned upside-down by the biggest shifts in audiences and economic models since the advent of television, my two biggest questions about whether we could still pursue a story like Watergate center on resources and verification. Many Americans, including opinion leaders in Washington and elsewhere, simply didn't or wouldn't believe The Washington Post's reporting about Watergate during its early months -- not until we were joined by the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS News, Judge John J. Sirica, the Senate Watergate committee and the special Watergate prosecutor.

In today's cacophonous media world, in which news, rumor, opinion and infotainment from every kind of source are jumbled together and often presented indiscriminately, how would such an improbable-sounding story ever get verified?

As newsrooms rapidly shrink, will they still have the resources, steadily amassed by newspapers since Watergate, for investigative reporting that takes months and even years of sustained work.

Thanks for Saying Nothing

2008-12-18T10:14:00.004-05:00

Tesasers:

The paradox of this scene was that the Obama campaign’s communications strategy was predicated in part on an aggressive indifference to this insider set. Staff members were encouraged to ignore new Web sites like The Page, written by Time’s Mark Halperin, and Politico, both of which had gained instant cachet among the Washington smarty-pants set. “If Politico and Halperin say we’re winning, we’re losing,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, would repeat mantralike around headquarters. He said his least favorite words in the English language were, “I saw someone on cable say this. . . .”

. . . . . There was a sense among Obama’s communications team that not only did they have a gifted candidate to ride but also that they had figured out new ways to maximize their advantages. The campaign highlighted its mastery of new political media that included a vast database of e-mail addresses and an ability to quickly put up Web sites and use blogs, online video and text messaging. They viewed themselves as “game changers” (the 2008 cliché for innovators), avatars of a New Way organization that had more in common with a Silicon Valley start-up — think Google or YouTube — than with any traditional political campaign that came before it.

. . . . . In one semifamous vignette, Bush’s communications team was holding a quiet celebration in the Roosevelt Room a few days after his re-election in 2004. The president stopped by to thank everyone for their efforts and then singled out McClellan, his robotically on-message front man. “I want to especially thank Scotty,” the president said. “I want to thank Scotty for saying” — and he paused — “nothing.”

. . . . . .
In the course of the campaign, the Obama team showcased a number of new-media applications designed to project a sense of open-book communications to the public. They promoted the fact that the campaign made major announcements — like Obama’s selection of Biden — by communicating “directly” with voters who provided their e-mail and text addresses.

If Obama was attacked by a rival, the campaign would not just push back by traditional means (arguing their case with reporters) but also by putting up their own Web sites like fightthesmears.com. This allowed the campaign not only to defend itself but also to draw more coverage to how innovative and responsive it was. “You would get a press hit each time you’d roll out a Web site, which in itself became a narrative,” Sevugan said.

In recent weeks, the incoming president has begun delivering a weekly video address online — the Obama version of the traditional weekly radio address. Plouffe has initiated a kind of online suggestion box, where voters are invited to write in and discuss the issues they are most concerned about.

There has been much speculation about how the new administration might deploy the Obama campaign’s massive voter database. People have theorized that it could be a way for the White House to skirt the traditional media “filter,” just as Ronald Reagan — and in a different way, George W. Bush — would “go over the heads” of the Washington elite and speak directly to the people through televised news conferences or outlets like conservative talk radio. “The massive list of energized activists is the biggest stick Obama will carry in Washington,” the liberal blogger Ari Melber wrote on The Nation’s Web site. “It enables direct communication at a remarkable scale. . . . To put it another way, the list dwarfs the audience of all the nightly cable-news shows combined.”

Plouffe said the list could be used to invite grass-roots participation in government or to build support for the administration’s policies. “We’ll see whether it works or not,” he said. “It’s never been tried before.”
. . . .The idea that Obama has benefited from an extended journalistic valentine breeds great impatience from his advisers. They argue that good press follows naturally onto winning campaigns — and that the efforts of Clinton and McCain yielded deservedly bad press. “Part of our coverage ended up being better in both instances; we ended up running better campaigns,” Gibbs said. “We had a narrative that was probably better.”

Read the, as they say, whole thing.

Democracy & Inequality

2008-12-17T18:57:00.001-05:00

The APSA Report I mentioned. Worth a read.

Question of the Day

2008-12-16T14:27:00.001-05:00

Courtesy of the Washington Monthly:

If six media figures joining Democratic campaigns is proof that reporters are liberal, are seven loyal Bushies joining news outlets proof that major media outlets are conservative?

Timely as Tonight's Discussion

2008-12-15T20:09:00.003-05:00

Yglesias on the paper paper.

UPDATE: From the New Yorker article Yglesias references:

Even now, papers often display a “not invented here” mentality, treating their sites as walled gardens, devoid of links to other news outlets. From a print perspective, that’s understandable: why would you advertise good work that’s being done elsewhere? But it’s an approach that makes no sense on the Web.

These mistakes have been undeniably costly, but they’re not the whole story. The peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they’ve arguably become more popular. The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance. Usually, when an industry runs into the kind of trouble that Levitt was talking about, it’s because people are abandoning its products. But people don’t use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That’s a consumer’s dream, but eventually it’s going to collide with reality: if newspapers’ profits vanish, so will their product.
Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron. It’s even possible that a few papers will be able to earn enough money online to make the traditional ad-supported strategy work. But it would not be shocking if, sometime soon, there were big American cities that had no local newspaper; more important, we’re almost sure to see a sharp decline in the volume and variety of content that newspapers collectively produce. For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime—intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on—and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can’t last. Soon enough, we’re going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.

Yawning and Fuming

2008-12-15T19:58:00.000-05:00

Sullivan and Greenwald gang up on The Media.

A Shout Out

2008-12-15T07:53:00.001-05:00

to Right from the Left Coast. Read this before class tonight.

On Net Neutrality

2008-12-15T07:35:00.002-05:00

Ruh-ro:

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.

Read the rest.

Online-Offline Communications

2008-12-14T14:46:00.000-05:00

Good fodder for tomorrow's discussion, here.

Nominations are Open

2008-12-11T07:50:00.001-05:00

for TPM's Golden Dukes Awards. Perhaps some of you might want to offer nominations for Sleaziest Campaign Ad or Best Election Season Fib?

Post Mortem

2008-12-09T16:14:00.001-05:00

from Nate.

UPDATE: A very different kind of post mortem, on Obama's rhetoric and classical rhetorical tropes.

How Would We Know?

2008-12-05T16:08:00.001-05:00

This is a very good question indeed, and worth our attention, perhaps both online and in class. As Steven writes, "does a front runner receive additional positive media coverage because of his front-runner status and how does this [a]ffect election coverage?" We might productively think of this as an effort to trace feedback effects. How would we go about it?

Gillmor Discussion Fodder

2008-12-05T15:53:00.000-05:00

"Sometimes, the change is enough to make your head spin. This is one of those moments."

$750 Million

2008-12-05T10:13:00.002-05:00

From the AP via TPM:

Barack Obama's presidential campaign raised $104 million in the weeks around Election Day, a grand finale to a successful bid that shattered fundraising records.

Overall, Obama raised nearly $750 million during his odyssey to the presidency, according to reports being filed with the Federal Election Commission. The reporting period covered Oct. 15 to Nov. 24.

The campaign said more than 1 million contributors donated during the period, with more than half donating for the first time. Throughout the campaign, more than 3.95 million contributors gave to the eventual president-elect, his campaign said.

The Democrat's fundraising and his spending eclipsed that of his Republican rival, John McCain. Obama was the first presidential candidate since the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s to raise private donations during the general election. McCain opted to accept public financing. That limited him to $84 million to spend from the beginning of September.

By comparison, Obama spent $315 million since Sept. 1, a huge disparity that McCain tried to narrow by relying on millions of dollars worth of help from the Republican National Committee.

. . . .

Overall, the institute found that Obama collected about 26 percent of his total haul from people who gave less than $200 — about the same as President George W. Bush did in his 2004 campaign, but less than Democrat Howard Dean's small-donor take of 38 percent in his unsuccessful primary bid that year.

And like other campaigns, Obama's relied for nearly half of its fundraising on big donors, those who gave $1,000 or more, a finding that "should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign," the institute reported.

For Discussion Tonight

2008-12-03T11:07:00.001-05:00

Jon Stewart Answers the Question

2008-12-01T23:17:00.004-05:00

Will he be able to mock a Democratic administration and its press coverage?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

MSNBC Replaces Fox News

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Equal Opportunity Stupidity

2008-12-01T23:09:00.002-05:00

The White House Press Corps: New administration, same pathology?

UPDATE: More here, confirming much of what we've been discussing about character-driven narratives in lieu of substantive analysis.

Final Exam -Draft Q

2008-12-01T19:13:00.005-05:00

"Without examining the media, we cannot comprehend American politics."

Respond to this claim with particular (though not exclusive) attention to the 2008 election. Include an evaluation of how that actual performance comports with your normative vision of the role of media in a democratic polity, and suggest how we might bridge whatever gaps you identify between the ideal and the real.

Present your argument and analysis with links to sources, embedded images, and video; and support your claims by reference to materials we have read (including those that I have posted to this blog), viewed, and discussed over the course of the semester.

That is, make an argument and defend it.

Post your approximately 3,500-word response on your blog only between 9:45-10:00 PM on December 31.

POST comments in, er, Comments.

Final Exam

2008-12-01T07:21:00.002-05:00

If you haven't already, go to The Lion's Den and weigh in on the final exam question. We'll discuss it a bit tonight, and try to finalize by Wednesday.

Another Piece of Suggestive Evidence

2008-11-28T15:21:00.001-05:00

for the profit-seeking model of media behavior? Even Murdoch loathes O'Reilley?

Blogs Victorious?

2008-11-25T20:49:00.001-05:00

Short of an admission from Brennan, how might we get some purchase on why he withdrew?

Indy Media Me

2008-11-25T16:30:00.002-05:00

You knew me when. . . . . .

UPDATE: Some radio me

We Just Can't Quit You

2008-11-24T22:41:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Daily Show's Best Sarah Palin Moments

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Are You Smarter Than A. . . . . .

2008-11-23T23:11:00.001-05:00

ISI Civics Quiz. How did you do?

Democracy Can Be Fun

2008-11-20T22:05:00.001-05:00

More from Sullivan worth stealing: which of these Minnesota ballots should count, and for whom???

Oooh, a New Silly Web Toy

2008-11-20T21:55:00.002-05:00

via Sullivan, go here, type in your blog address, and it tells you what personality type you are. It's science-y! Here's the results for CrankyDoc's:

The responsible and hardworking type. They are especially attuned to the details of life and are careful about getting the facts right. Conservative by nature they are often reluctant to take any risks whatsoever. The Duty Fulfillers are happy to be let alone and to be able to work int heir own pace. They know what they have to do and how to do it.

Hmmmm. . . . . .

A Little Berube

2008-11-20T09:40:00.001-05:00

on (a) History and (b) the relationship (sort of) between Theory and Agency. Plus, a link to a funny YouTube.

This Might Not Be Awful

2008-11-18T09:05:00.001-05:00

"The IFC Media Project"

New News?

2008-11-18T08:31:00.001-05:00

Brash young upstarts annoy sour old newspaper people. Okay, that's my headline, not the NYT's. Still. . . . .

Behind the Scenes

2008-11-14T14:55:00.000-05:00

of the Obama campaign, and some insight into their message/media strategy.

Generations

2008-11-11T08:48:00.001-05:00

The Jennifer Hochschild piece I mentioned yesterday.

Update

2008-11-10T20:54:00.002-05:00

For those of you who were not present tonight (ahem), a reminder that class will not meet on Wednesday, so that I can be here, and here, and here. On Monday, November 17th we will cover readings scheduled for both the 12th and 17th. The following people volunteered, or were volunteered, to assume responsibility for presenting the readings to the class:

Leighly, Ch. 4 -- Matt
Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston -- Mordy
Kaplan -- Daniel K.
Popkin -- Daniel G.
Chs. 1-5 in McChesney -- Steven P. and Josh

How Much Did You Give?

2008-11-10T12:13:00.002-05:00

Simian Confinement

2008-11-09T13:58:00.002-05:00

I've pointed you all to The Monkey Cage on a few occasions, and do so again now: there have been some terrific posts that are engaged in some systematic, thoughful post-election analysis. The methodological tools being used are a bit above your pay grade, to be sure, but the approach can nonetheless serve as a model of what rigorous, evidence-based analysis can look like. The comment threads are worth popping into, too.

Reminder

2008-11-09T13:10:00.002-05:00

For Monday, in addition to the brief article on BCRA (McCain-Feingold) (Raymond J. La Raja, “From Bad to Worse: The Unraveling of the Campaign Finance System,” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 6, no. 1 (2008) [E-RESERVES]), spend some quality time at opensecrets.org.

Think about what you find there, post about it, and be prepared to offer some summary and analysis of campiagn finance trends and outcomes for this, now completed, election cycle. Okay, nearly completed (see: AK, MN, GA, MO).

For more online resources, scroll down and see the listings on the right-hand column for "Election Law and $$$." (See esp. CQ Moneyline).

Voting Machines

2008-11-08T08:16:00.000-05:00

Well, this isn't good.

Deeper Than it May Appear

2008-11-06T13:41:00.001-05:00

as is often the case with The Onion

Cool Maps

2008-11-06T10:03:00.000-05:00

HERE

Themes

2008-11-05T09:58:00.005-05:00

We have talked some about the discipline, competence, and sophistication of the Obama campaign machinery. We have talked less about the consistency with which the campaign told a story and hammered upon a narrative. To wit: think about last night's speech, and its rhetorical touchstones, and then take another look/listen to this now-iconic video from Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am, riffing on Obama's January 8 NH Primary speech. It is, dare I say, Reaganesque. UPDATE: And note the shift in tone last night, and the very different cadence the "Yes, We Can" refrain takes: from peroration to somber determination (start least night's speech below at about (9:00).

"You've never seen anything like this on television"

2008-11-05T09:07:00.002-05:00

Perhaps there is a reason?

UPDATE: Hmmm. . . more embedding problems. Link here.
UPDATE II: Apparently fixed.

Pollsters' Predictions

2008-11-05T08:52:00.000-05:00

One early summary, from Washington Monthly:

POLLSTERS CAN EXHALE.... The presidential election offered a test for a lot of institutions, but professional pollsters had to realize that if Barack Obama came up short last night, not only would Americans question pollsters forever more, but we would probably start to look askance at the very idea of random statistical sampling.

As it turns out, they can relax.

The final Pollster.com report on the national popular vote showed Obama leading with 52% support. Based on the results that are currently available, Obama won with 52% support.

Indeed, looking over that interactive map that some of us have been obsessing over for quite a while, the polling averages really didn't get any states wrong at all. Arguably, the only state where the numbers were really off base was North Dakota, which turned out to be less competitive than expected, but that's a pretty inconsequential demerit in an otherwise impressive showing.

I'd add, by the way, that the final DailyKos/Research 2000 poll showed Obama leading McCain nationally 51% to 46%, while the final Rasmussen poll showed Obama up 52% to 46%. Both can take a bow not only for having nailed the final result, but also for beating their rivals.

And speaking of polls and impressive showings, how did Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight do? Nate's final projections showed Obama winning with 348 electoral votes and 52.3% of the popular vote. As of this morning's count, Obama has 349 electoral votes and 52% of the popular vote.

We're going to wonder how we got through elections without him.

Stepping Back

2008-11-05T08:38:00.004-05:00

We've buried ourselves, for good reasons, in lots of micro-level analysis. But there is, to state what should be obvious, a much larger narrative here. Here's one take:

UPDATE: Rats. Embedding Wonkiness. Go here.

Poll Closing Times

2008-11-04T16:26:00.002-05:00

The Poll Tax is Still With Us

2008-11-03T07:59:00.001-05:00

A Concise Column

2008-11-03T07:56:00.001-05:00

Recapping the election. (h/t A. Sullivan)

Don't Get Pwned

2008-11-02T18:59:00.000-05:00

How to evaluate data on "The Youth Vote."

Nate Says. . . . .

2008-11-02T09:38:00.001-05:00

Here's where to watch:

This is beginning to look like a five-state election. Those states are Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Essentially all relevant electoral scenarios involve some combination of these five states.

I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.

We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.

That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.

(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)

Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada

That's basically what it comes down to, although I'm sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.

"The 2/3 of the Iceberg You Can't See"

2008-11-02T09:25:00.003-05:00

It's a Media class, so we've been focusing on the effects of media on the campaign, and starting tomorrow I'll ask you to begin to explain precisely how and why both Big Media and New Media have mattered to the outcome. But this clip offers a reminder about the "below-the-radar" activity -- the activity that, arguably, is the principal reason Clinton lost the Democratic Primary to Obama (Nate Silver has been all over this, of course):

Where is Your Election News Coming From?

2008-11-02T09:05:00.003-05:00

New from Pew:

Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).

While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news. And with so much interest in the election next week, the public's use of the internet as a campaign news source is up even since the primaries earlier this year. In March, 26% cited the internet as a main source for election news, while the percentages citing television and newspapers remain largely unchanged.

Read the rest.

I'm Perplexed

2008-10-31T16:46:00.002-04:00

as others are. What's the goal of this McCain ad? Couldn't it just as easily, with a few tweaks, be an Obama ad instead? What am I missing?

One Small Chunk of Data

2008-10-29T08:35:00.003-04:00

Speaking to my point about the "undemocratic" nature of the Electoral College, via Matt Ygelsias:

UPDATE: The larger picture:

Worst Ads of the Season?

2008-10-27T12:02:00.002-04:00

Politico says it's these.

A Much More Precise Electoral Map

2008-10-25T06:58:00.001-04:00

from the NYT

Election Night Update

2008-10-24T13:07:00.002-04:00

Okay, this will shock you all, I realize, but I have run into a Gigantor-sized bureaucratic fol-de-rol in trying to get something set up for election night. So how's this for an alternative plan: I'll end my Tuesday night class a bit early (we'll set a time this coming week), and we can head over to my apartment (about ten blocks north). I've two TVs in separate rooms, so we can bounce back and forth. And if you can find someplace not terribly expensive for Kosher food, we'll order in, and it will be on me. I'll ask you guys to be responsible for beverages, and paper/plastic cups and plates (or we can pick them up on the way). This is not ideal, I know, but it seems our best alternative without too much mishigos (spelling?). How's this sound? (Brief reply in comments).

"The Weirdness of Campaign Reporting"

2008-10-24T10:42:00.001-04:00

Newsweek's Michael Hastings via Ezra Klein. With just a little Hunter S. Thompson.

We're Number 36! We're Number 36!

2008-10-24T05:26:00.000-04:00

Press Freedom Index, 2008

Bias?

2008-10-24T05:06:00.003-04:00

From a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political -- focused on polling, the electoral map and tactics.
For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain's reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bold steps in an effort to reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama's character did hurt Obama's media coverage, but McCain's was even more negative.
Coverage of Palin, in the end, was more negative than positive. In all, 39% of Palin stories carried a negative tone, while 28% were positive and 33% were neutral. Contrary to what some critics have suggested, little of the coverage was about Palin's personal life (5%).
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was nearly the invisible man. His coverage enjoyed just one large moment, the vice presidential debate, which also provided the only positive or neutral contribution to his coverage. Aside from that week, the limited coverage he did receive was far more negative than Palin's, and nearly as negative as McCain's.
The economy was hardly a singular lens through which the media perceived the race. Though it was the No. 1 campaign topic overall, in five out of the six weeks analyzed, other topics drew more media attention, and the economy accounted for not much more of the campaign newshole (18%) than did assessments of the candidates in the four debates (17%).
Horse race reporting, once again, made up the majority of coverage, but less so than earlier in the contest or in previous elections. Since the conventions ended, 53% of the newshole studied has focused on political matters, particularly tactics, strategy and polling -- twice the coverage focused on policy (20%). The focus on tactics and horse race increased in the last three weeks as both campaigns became more negative in their rhetoric.

Read the rest HERE.

Deep Geek Blogging

2008-10-20T07:00:00.003-04:00

Pull up your socks -- I'm back. I'll pop in and comment on your newly-posted bloggy goodness within the next few days, but meanwhile, take a look at this nice, very different kind of fact-checking, via the political scientists at The Monkey Cage. Fun fact: one Dutch graduate student offered me an exegesis on how Heroes offers a keen window into American culture. Hmmmm. . . .

Blog Pause

2008-10-14T12:39:00.002-04:00

Okay, I'm off. Back next week. Posting will be light, at best, though I will try to pop in periodically. Meanwhile, play nice, keep reading, keep watching, keep thinking, and post wise, insightful, professionally-formatted things. I'll probably not see the final debate, so tell me what I missed, especially as it relates to the media coverage.

Brave New World

2008-10-14T12:35:00.000-04:00

Virtual ads.

"The Irrational Electorate"

2008-10-14T12:04:00.002-04:00

Larry Bartels, reviewing questions and literature that should now be familiar. Worth your time.

Goodbye to All That?

2008-10-14T08:31:00.000-04:00

Nate Silver on the "Bradley Effect"

More Kathleen Hall Jamieson

2008-10-12T18:32:00.000-04:00

on Bill Moyers Journal.