Media Criticism

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.

I was scrolling through Yahoo! News this afternoon as a distraction from my work when I came across the following headline:

Wicca teacher claims 1 Mega ticket

As a naturally curious person, I read the article while realizing that Yahoo! News and the Associated Press were using a silly headline to get the attention of readers.

Who cares if Elwood “Bunky� Bartlett is a Wicca teacher or helps practice New Age medicine? It does not contribute to the story at hand and it seems like Yahoo! News is simply highlighting the freak show that is American society. Bartlett’s remarks in the Associated Press interview seem normal but the centerpiece of the article is the agreement the ticket holder made with the “multiple gods associated with his Wiccan beliefs.� It seems that Mr. Bartlett asked to win the lottery in exchange for a lifetime mission of teaching Wicca to interested students.

I think my annoyance with this story comes from my belief that lottery winners are not newsworthy. While the media expresses concern with the fame of people who have done nothing (read anyone from The Hills or anyone named Paris Hilton) noteworthy, they try to promote “average� people making it big. If I won the lottery, I would be happy with winning the lottery and not having the Associated Press breath down my neck. Lottery winners should decline comment, do the press conference that the lottery will invariably set up and hopefully live happy without letting the money get to them if only to break the curse of big time winners who have encountered unthinkable problems after their victory.