Media Criticism

As a writer for CensorSpace, I came out quickly to endorse former Senator John Edwards in his bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This endorsement means very little and I don’t think that the blogosphere, whether liberal or conservative, makes nearly the difference that it thinks it does on politics. I feel it necessary to disclose this fact as I have vacillated on the available candidates in both parties in previous posts on Media Critiques.

I am coming out today to endorse wholeheartedly the candidacy of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. There are many reasons I have chosen Edwards over other candidates not the least of which is that Edwards is an underdog with a detailed populist program facing the two-headed monster of Hillary and Barack. John Edwards has been releasing specific policies since the beginning of his campaign including a national health care plan and plan to deal with poverty that include ways to pay for these programs. His most recent policy has put my support over the top for Edwards over my next choice, “someone else” followed by “third party.”

Mr. Edwards is now railing against drug advertisements that help drive up the price of pharmaceuticals in the United States. You know those commercials for penis medication and sleeping pills? They cost money in prime time and that money goes back to the public in the form of higher retail prices. One of the former senator’s first acts as president would be to promote a two year moratorium on consumer advertising for new drugs. He would also provide the FDA the power to stop advertisements that are misleading or based on questionable evidence. It is no wonder that Edwards has a devoted, if small, following in states like Iowa and South Carolina.

I have been advocating in various publications for the regulation of drug advertisements since my days as an ultra-liberal graduate student in Wisconsin. Drug companies complain about the high price of research but they don’t seem to mind putting money into lobbying, advertising and hectoring doctors to peddle their drugs. Mr. Edwards has come out for things that I believe in like investment in education, health insurance and a sound foreign policy in recent months. The smear machine within the Republican Party, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the media has focused on expensive haircuts. It is time to get past media obfuscation to find the truth.

This will be the last time I write about Mr. Edwards in this blog until the primaries unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to do so. I will not be a shill for Edwards (beyond this entry, at least) nor will I attack other candidates on his behalf. I simply want to say that corporate media can be reformed for the better with John Edwards in the Oval Office. If that is a sentiment that is incorrect, then I will no doubt look back upon this post in upcoming months to cringe at my narrow mindedness. For now, it is time for change in the way drug companies, lobbyists and major political parties do business.

The website TMZ has been renowned for its ability to muckrake the dirty deeds of B list celebrities and has-beens over the last year. The Michael Richards racist tirade at LA’s Laugh Factory and Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic comments to police show the type of journalism engages in. Indeed, TMZ is so successful at this work that their web links are picked up by the mainstream media and disseminated with the TMZ logo to millions of people.

I hate to say that TMZ does a service because I think the lives of celebrities are none of my concern. When I pay to see a movie, I pay to see actors at work and I am not entitled to know about their private lives unless they become a hazard to the public. I will say that TMZ uses the type of journalism that major newspapers and cable news networks are beginning to use to pursue leads. The reason this website is able to accomplish successful (gasp) journalism is the topic matter is interesting to a voyeuristic public.

The in-your-face celebrity entertainment of TMZ is now on television. I question the necessity of another crass TV show about celebrity news though my local TV station runs it at 11:05 pm when no one is watching. I will not watch TMZ on TV because a) I think celebrity news is a waste of time and b) It will no doubt get homogenized and decrease its Web credibility with a few months in television no man’s land. If I had to choose between TMZ and, let’s say, Cavemen, I would be really hard pressed to make a decision. Harvey Levin may accidentally give me a laugh while he talks about TMZ’s latest search for celebrity dirt.

The people who read this blog are probably sick of me talking about the Democratic debates, the 2008 election and other aspects of politics that are fueled entirely by the media. I even get sick of these diatribes but I think I have given myself the unintentional mission of ending the long primary process once and for all, one blog at a time. To fuel this fire, the awful trio of the Huffington Post, Yahoo! and Slate are putting on a unique debate and a “mashup” tool that allows people to put individual answers together into their own package. Here is a little bit more detail on the debate from the New York Times:

Here’s how it works: Charlie Rose is hooking up by satellite individually from his studio in New York with each of the eight Democratic candidates, who are scattered across the country. He’ll question them each for 12 minutes on three topics _ Iraq, health care and education. There will also be a “wild card” question.

According to all three sponsors, these answers will be available on Friday through each website. The “mashup” tool will also be available to help political and technological nerds the opportunity to get involved in yet another debate.

Marc Lampkin makes a good point in his latest post on the Huffington Post, a liberal blogging website headed by Arianna Huffington. Lampkin discusses the use of the “mashup” tool as a way for people to hear what they want to hear from each candidate. Yahoo!, Slate and the Huffington Post should know better. This is already what the mainstream media does to candidates particularly the minor candidates who only make it on the news when they make a gaffe or do something silly.

If the Internet-using public is indeed tired with politics as usual and poor media coverage for their candidate, they should not resort to the “mashup” tool. Instead, they should search for unabridged audio, video and written transcripts of their speeches to hear what they are saying around the country. Lampkin’s final point is that we will hear more of the same which makes a “mashup” of what Obama, Clinton or even Kucinich or Gravel useless. Let’s stop pretending like high-tech gadgets and tools are really going to improve the process until we are actually ready to change the process in Washington D.C.

As you may have gathered from reading previous posts, I read the New York Times politics blog The Caucus with a mixture of interest and bemusement. Some of their posts are interesting while others are examples of why the Times is deeply entrenched in institutionalized political moderation. I couldn’t help but notice an article today talking about Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a primary battle he will face next year for his House seat.

The premise of this article is that challenger Rosemary Palmer recently received an endorsement from former Democratic House candidate Paul Hackett, who has had run-ins with Kucinich in the past. All three people involved in this article are anti-war and share similar domestic beliefs. One of the things that upset me about the article was the comments of New York Times readers, including a comment stating that this article was a “hatchet job.”

I agree with the general sentiment that the blog is the perfect place for the Times to highlight lesser-known candidates. It costs nothing to print these articles and people who read the blog are political junkies like me. The Times editorial staff is missing out on an opportunity to write about interesting candidates during one of the most competitive races in recent memory. While I dislike the venom that commentators used toward this article, I think that the Times could do more to provide voters information over the long primary campaign.

However, a “hatchet job” seems like an overstatement. Everything I read in the Times piece seems accurate. Kucinich has been campaigning for president since 2003 and undoubtedly neglects some of his duties in the meantime. The Times has done a good job highlighting the consequences of running for president by a lower tier candidate, namely that they face challenges within their constituency. To the comments that the Times only cares for the major candidates while denigrating the bottom tier, I would say that they are doing a fine job for now on pointing out behind-the-scenes issues for every candidate on the ballot.

In the last few years, the accessibility of blogging has grown. Along with it, so has the community of people who can now publish whatever they want whenever they want. Some are immensely popular and may even prove to be excellent resources. Others are just personal places to vent and rant. Either way, there’s little question that blogs have changed the way we receive information.

Blogs have changed the way we view the media in a few ways. One, journalism is more transparent. With all of the commentary floating around about certain events, it’s easier to spot bias and spin in the media. Two, I think people are inspired to think and write.

Before the blogging era, only a select group of people could publish information for all the world to read. Now, anybody with an e-mail address and the writing ability of a squirrel can start his/her own website. This has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it’s possible to access a wealth of information and analysis never before available. However, the disadvantages to a completely unfiltered blogosphere are twofold. One, the sheer number of blogs makes finding the right one difficult; you can find yourself wading through thousands of posts that say little more than “I HATE BUSH LOLZ” or “STUPID HIPPY LIBERALS OMFG”. This is the downside to letting literally anybody publish anything: the quality of content certainly decreases. Two, with no content filter or editing, there’s no guarantee that anything you find on a blog (including this one) is true.

However, I think the most important aspect of the interaction of blogs and the media stems from this disadvantage. It’s common knowledge that ABC News, CNN, and Fox News are better resources than, say, this blog. People, therefore, have to be more discerning about their sources of information, especially when they read news online. This improves our interaction with the media in two ways. One, the days of “it’s written down; therefore, it’s true” are over. It’s easy to question mainstream journalism now that there are so many alternative sources. Two, because news organizations are businesses, they necessarily respond to the needs of the consumer. As the consumer becomes more aware of the media and their faults, he/she will demand higher quality journalism. The news sources that deliver will stay alive; those that provide low-quality journalism will eventually go out of business.

Of course, the negative side to this argument is that the people don’t always demand the highest quality journalism. Celebrity gossip is always popular, and the blogging world only fuels that fire. Look how many blogs we have at 451 Press dedicated to celebrities and pop culture.

We’ll continue to write, and we hope that people will continue to read.

Blogs, Blogging, Journalism, Media