shortformblog: soupsoup: Visualization of Twitter Town Hall topics Press focuses on conflict/politic

jaymug: Reporters Without Borders: Censorship tells the wrong story, Putin

It’s all especially relevant lately, and here in D.C., as Stewart and Colbert prepare for their big rallies on the National Mall in October.

American University Professor Matt Nisbet has been writing a lot about this lately on his Age of Engagement blog and he has a lot of fascinating things to say. One of the coolest parts about his most recent posts on this topic, too, is that he’s interviewed one of my other favorite American University professors, Dr. Lauren Feldman, about the issue (she also happens to be our AU-SMCEDU advisor–more on that soon).

It’s all absolutely fascinating to read. Read the whole series on the Age of Engagement blog here–Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. And check out a quick excerpt below the cut.

Q: Are audiences learning about politics when they watch these programs or are these programs, as some fear, replacing the use of more valuable sources of news and information?

Feldman: During the 2004 election, the Pew Research Center reported that young people were relying on satirical comedy programs like SNL and The Daily Show and late-night talk shows like Leno and Letterman for information about the campaign. While this group was the most likely to say they learned from comedy, it was the least likely to say they learned from network news and newspapers. These trends fueled a media narrative that young people were deserting traditional news in favor of comedy.

Well, it turns out that although at a macro-level, yes, young people as a demographic are consuming much less traditional news and more late-night comedy, it is not necessarily that the same individuals who are tuning out the news are those watching late-night. A 2006 study conducted by Danna Young and Russ Tisinger found that those young people who reported watching and learning the most from late-night comedy also reported the highest rates of exposure to more traditional forms of news.

As a follow up to that study, I partnered with Danna Young to investigate whether exposure to political information in late-night comedy might actually lead people to pay more attention to traditional news. We were testing something called the “gateway hypothesis,” originally proposed by Harvard political scientist Matthew Baum.

This is the idea that entertainment programming that contains political content will motivate otherwise uninterested viewers to start paying attention to the news by making politics more salient (via its political interviews, jokes, etc.) and providing them with a cursory understanding of political issues.

Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that over the course of the 2004 primaries, the audiences of Leno and Letterman increased their attention to campaign news in traditional sources at a faster rate than non-viewers—suggesting that coverage of the election on Leno and Letterman fostered interest in conventional campaign news.

The audience for The Daily Show, on the other hand, maintained high levels of news attention regardless of that program’s election coverage. This is likely because, unlike Leno and Letterman, the content of The Daily Show is consistently and reliably political—not just during campaign events and elections, but all the time. These results confirm that late-night comedy audiences—of both The Daily Show and Leno/Letterman varieties—are not tuning into these programs instead of traditional news.

I would also argue that traditional news is not necessarily more valuable as a source of political information than The Daily Show or Colbert Report. Although it is unclear how much people learn about politics from The Daily Show and Colbert Report, any absence of learning is not due to a dearth of political substance – for example, a study by Julia Fox and colleagues found that The Daily Show was at least as substantive in its coverage of the 2004 election as the network evening news.

More likely, audiences are already knowledgeable about the news of the day when they tune into The Daily Show and Colbert Report. All in all, I would argue that The Daily Show and similar programs provide a useful complement to, rather than a replacement for, citizens’ traditional news diets.

Q: It seems that the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and SNL have become an important part of our personal conversations about politics, at least among a younger generation of Americans. If these programs are not only being watched but also frequently talked about at school, at the office, or online via Facebook and blogs, does this add to their impact?

Feldman: Absolutely. Conversations about these shows – both online and offline – only serve to increase their profile and reinforce their impact. People don’t have to actually see the original broadcast of these programs in order to be influenced by them. Moreover, when relayed by a friend or colleague, along with a personal endorsement or commentary, this is apt to give more weight – or provide new context – to the show’s message.

Comedy Central apparently recognizes the importance of informal sharing of its shows’ content; its website facilitates online conversations about The Daily Show and The Colbert Report by making it easy for people to embed or link to their video clips on blogs, social media, etc.

For those of you who haven’t heard, Dave Weigel is human, with thoughts, emotions, and feelings, like most of the rest of us.

Let me explain. Until yesterday, Dave Weigel was the Washington Post blogger covering the conservative movement. One caveat: he’s not all that conservative. Does that make him a bad blogger? A poor journalist? No. Does it mean he might not have been the best person for the job? Maybe. But that’s missing the larger point here.

The point is that our media is fundamentally flawed. Journalism in the 21st century is facing overwhelming forces, and yesterday’s fiasco at the Washington Post only underscores the futility of trying to fight them. The idea of objective journalism is a myth, for three reasons:

1. News moves faster than people.
2. “Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.
3. Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

News moves faster than people.

In the 1990s we saw the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, as dedicated cable news channels like CNN and Fox News Channel emerged on the scene. Little did they know, the media was only witnessing the beginning of a rapidly accelerating news cycle, one that has now accelerated far out of their control.

Today we have social media. Social media doesn’t drive the news cycle–events drive the news cycle. But social media has placed the control of the news cycle squarely in the hands of the information consumers themselves, leaving television and newspapers struggling to keep up.

Lost amidst the battle between corporate media conglomerates and the “little guy” citizen journalists, of course, are the paid, professional journalists. These journalists are overworked, underpaid, underappreciated, and forced to hold themselves to outrageous and unrealistic standards of “objectivity”–standards that are simply impossible to live up to the 21st century hyper news cycle.

“Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.

In case you haven’t noticed, newspapers are dying. There’s lots of theories as to why they’re dying, and likely more than one accurate explanation. I tend to favor the Strategic Dissonance Model, created by former Intel CEO Andy Grove.



The model, above, basically states that at a recent point in history there was an inflection point in the business of information. As consumers of information and new media–i.e. blogs, social media, etc.–moved one direction, progressing towards an open, generally opinion-based, consumer-generated style of news, old media regressed toward a more closed, more staunchly “objective” style. This, in turn, created a dissonance gap between the two, resulting in old media’s decline and new media’s rapid success.

My point here is that consumer’s dont give a shit about objectivity. Not only do they not care, but they sure as hell don’t care enough to pay for it. The only people subscribing to old media today are people who either a) just like the feel of the newspaper, or b) rely on very factual, researched articles for research of their own.

Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

Finally, the obvious point. Journalists do have opinions. That is an obvious fact, and one that every single person on earth should know. If you think that journalists are robots and have no opinions, don’t agree or disagree with politicians, and don’t feel certain ways on certain issues, then you clearly don’t understand the way the world works.

So here’s the situation. We have a hyperspeed news cycle that is out of corporate media’s control, consumer’s that don’t care about unbiased journalism yet business models still founded on selling it, and journalists with opinions working for businesses that refuse to acknowledge their humanity.

See any problems there?

Not only is this a fundamentally flawed system, but this misleads news consumers. When you read an article on the Huffington Post, you know that it’s going to have a liberal bias. When you watch MSNBC you know it’s got a liberal slant. And when you watch Fox News they make no efforts to hide their conservative bias. These media organizations are some of the few in the world that are being (relatively) honest with their consumers.

The ones claiming objectivity are lying to you. I’m looking at you, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and, for that matter, the AP, NBC, ABC, CNN, and any number of other organizations. Each of these organizations has biased journalists, producing biased work, yet they insist over and over that they are objective and unbiased. When relatively uninformed readers and watchers consume this content, they interpret it as objective. Informed and experienced information consumers recognize the political bias inherent in these organizations and journalists and interpret it as such, taking in the actual facts and the rest with a grain of salt (as it should be).

In other words (and thanks for sticking around through this long entry), Dave Weigel should never have been fired, and journalists should never feel the need to keep their personal opinions and bias secret from the public.

Think about it. How can we change this? What will it take to convince traditional media that they are simply going about the business of news the wrong way?

Sound off in the comments or tweet at me. And don’t forget to retweet and “like” this post on Facebook using the links below.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/26/the-myth-of-objective-journalism/feed/ 5 http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/24/a-liberal-blogger-a-conservative-blogger-and-a-journalist-all-walk-into-microsoft/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/24/a-liberal-blogger-a-conservative-blogger-and-a-journalist-all-walk-into-microsoft/#comments Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:24:44 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=654 Continue reading →]]> Sounds like the beginning of a bad geek joke, doesn’t it?

Well actually, it was the setting of tonight’s Social Media Club DC event, titled “Leveraging Online Relationships,” and hosted at Microsoft’s Friendship Heights office here in Washington, D.C. Organized and hosted by the awesome Sarah Wurrey, the event blew our geeky little minds, as usual. The panel consisted of:

• Alan Rosenblatt – A digital strategist, liberal organizer, professor and blogger, Alan is also the Associate Director of Online Advocacy for the Center for American Progress. Lucky me, this has been my second time to meet him in the past five days (he can’t escape me, haha!) and I swear he teaches me so much every time, not to mention every day via Twitter/Facebook/etc.
• Rebecca Wales – Rebecca is the Director of Communications for Smart Girl Politics, a conservative action network. Now obviously I have my qualms with her cause, but she’s got some real talent and she’s an incredibly nice person. She’s a ton of fun to talk to and I learned a lot from her tonight. Plus, know thy enemy, right? (Just kidding, Rebecca!)
• Brian Dresher – He is the Marketing Manager for USA Today, and boy is he smart. Not only did he provide some excellent insight into social media, but he provided the unique viewpoint of someone who’s industry is changing rapidly and dramatically–journalism. He told us a little about what USA Today is doing to continue to connect with its audience, and even told us where you can get a little bit of a behind-the-scenes glimpse.

So, clearly, you missed out. Anyway, be sure to check the hashtag stream for more learnings from the evening. Also, see my photos from the event embedded below or here on my flickr.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/24/a-liberal-blogger-a-conservative-blogger-and-a-journalist-all-walk-into-microsoft/feed/ 3 http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/21/alex-priest-columnist-not-reporter-evidently/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/21/alex-priest-columnist-not-reporter-evidently/#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:33:54 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=493 Continue reading →]]> So you may remember me writing a bit about how my first story as a reporter would be coming out in today’s edition of our university newspaper, The Eagle. Well that’s not happening.

Evidently–and I wish I’d known this before I spent several hours work into the article–columnists aren’t allowed to report for The Eagle too. It’s one or the other. Either/or. Pick one, not two, “you can’t have it both ways.” I had wondered, at first, because I knew that major publications often had similar restrictions. However, this being a little university newspaper–and the editor and staff not questioning my authority to write an article–I figured it must be alright, in this circumstance.

Not so. After researching, interviewing, writing and finally submitting my piece, I was called the next day to hear that my piece would not be run, since I’m a columnist, too. Honestly, I think it’s a stupid rule–the article was written perfectly objectively, in my humble opinion, and I’ve separated the views of my column clearly from the information conveyed in my article. But nonetheless, it’s not going to happen. Because it’s not going to happen, I’m going to publish my article here. It sure won’t get as many eyeballs here as it would have in a print edition of The Eagle, but it’s better than nothing. Read it, if you like, and let me know what you think in the comments. I always appreciate feedback. Check it out below the cut.

Confidence abounds for AU’s financial future, despite other colleges’ worries

American University officials are confident 2010 will be another successful year, despite pessimism by many other colleges. Successful progress toward the AnewAU development campaign, an upgraded bond rating, and official university financial documents all point toward a similarly positive outlook.

At a meeting of the Council of Independent Colleges in early January more than 60 college presidents gathered for discussion on the rough economy’s impact on their schools.

“There is a theory that fall 2010 is going to be the hard one,” said Paul Hennigan, president of Point Park University, in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the event. AU President Cornelius Kerwin was not in attendance for the meeting but his comments in his Dec. 4 “End of Semester Update” contradict the sentiment.

“The condition of our university remains strong,” he said. “The enrollment trends… have not changed, and we remain on track to operate within our revenue and expenditure targets for the current fiscal year.”

Kerwin is not the only one confident about AU’s future. Thomas Minar, AU’s Vice President of Development and Alumni Relations, considers the university to be “very fortunate to be in the position we’re in.” As the man in charge of the AnewAU fundraising campaign, he said he’s been pleased to see development performing even better than in 2008.

The AnewAU campaign launched in October of 2003 with the goal of $200 million. Now the campaign has reached $196.2 million and is in its final stages. Minar said cash proceeds in December were “considerably higher than other years” and emphasized that “AU is in as good or better shape as any of our peers.”

AnewAU is “very focused on raising money for the SIS building,” he said, referring to the 70,000 square foot new building for AU’s School of International Service. The school has only raised approximately half of its $25 million goal, according to the SIS Web site. Minar said that as the building nears completion there will be more focus on fundraising for new School of Communications facilities. Students will hear “significant news” about SOC facilities in the first half of 2010.

Standard & Poor’s Rating Services expressed confidence in AU and upgraded AU’s bond rating from A to A+ in December. AU was one of only 12 institutions–one of only two private–to receive an upgrade from S&P in 2009.

“We have been operating with a financial management strategy for some time that has taken a very conservative approach that I believe is helping us,” said Don Myers, AU’s Vice President of Finance and Treasurer, in an “Inside Higher Ed” article on the bond upgrade.

AU’s 2008-2009 Annual Report and 2010-2011 Budget echo the confidence of the university administration.

“Never has our future been brighter than it is at this moment,” said Gary Abramson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, in his introduction to the Annual Report. Other language in the report states confidently, “we [AU] are on the cusp of greatness.”

The Budget had good news too, especially for faculty and staff. In an economy where many schools are laying off staff and freezing salaries, AU is doing the opposite. The school has set aside money for a 3.0% performance-based salary and benefits increase for both fiscal years 2010 and 2011. In addition, $2.6 million has been set aside to hire 23 new tenure and tenure-track faculty over the next two years.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/21/alex-priest-columnist-not-reporter-evidently/feed/ 2