Art Show Opening this Weekend

Stop by the Contemporary Arts Center here in New Orleans for an opening this Saturday, 6-8 p.m.

I know one of the artists involved, Colin B. Miller, quite well - and he has a number of rather provocative pieces in the show, part of a series entitled "Talking Heads," centering on technically proficient works commenting on the newsmedia.

Here's an example:

|

Stretching the truth

Sound's like Jesus on the mound!

Some 75,000 people flocked to Portland’s waterfront Sunday to watch Barack Obama speak, making it the biggest rally the campaign has held to date. Thousands stood on the lawn, dozens watched from boats and from the bridge stretching across the Willamette River...

This one and other stories neglected to report that Barack was "preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists", who I might add, are enjoyed by this blog.

|

Obama (insert vigorous verb here)s Bush

In the latest fray between Barack Obama and George W. Bush over the use of diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy, it's interesting to watch the major news media outlets' coverage. Specifically the headlines. And the verbs.

See the screenshot below for a sampling of typical headlines covering the event or check out an updated list on Google News here.
















What is Obama doing to Bush? The headlines are replete with verbs like "lashes," "blasts," and "strikes back" - all harsh, strong, combative words.

And yet, was Obama particularly raw in his response?

Or is this an example of the press - looking for a new twist or chapter or tidbit of rising tension in the meta-narrative it's been writing about this campaign - painting the imperturbable, perpetually unfazed Obama as something other than a cucumber for once? Even when the actual words and conduct that produced the headline "Obama tears into Bush, McCain" aren't all that blatantly incendiary:



Obama does come off as more animated than usual in his South Dakota appearance, but I think words like "disputes" and "rejects" and "mocks" would be more appropriate substitutes for the headlines. Frankly, he remained too civil to warrant some of the words actually employed - words that allow the media to vent vicariously about Bush, spice up the campaign storyline, and, as they say, sell newspapers. Or at least online advertising.

|

Colbert '08 - Seepage and Flow

Today on Drudge, we see the following link:

Colbert's Campaign May Run Afoul of Law...

It links to a story at ABC News published today.

October 24 - ABC News

Given that this point was made earlier in rather blatant fashion at two high profile political observer sentinel outposts, I'm surprised it took so long to trickle up - or down - to Drudge.

October 19 - Politico.com
October 23 - Slate.com

In the face of today's hyper-news cycle, the five day lag makes the story look like an erratic boulder that finally worked its way through the ice to the ablation zone of the media glacier.

What about Digg? Any better job in getting word to the masses?

Digg - nothing in the highly enlightening comments on an items soliciting help for Colbert that I can see that makes the point (the ABC story has started registering) but, from what I can tell, there was one from 5 days ago that only got 18 Diggs by today.

What took so long for the basic tidbit of legal analysis to spread? I suppose you could argue the mainstream news outlets didn't consider the run a legitimate phenomenon out of the gates.

And I haven't even looked at the 1,297 Discussion Topics or 30,672 wall posts on the 1,000,000 Strong for Colbert Facebook group to see if illegality was mentioned there early on...

|

Old School Newspapering

Reason Magazine peels back a few layers to take a look at the Madison-born satire newspaper, the Onion, and contemporary journalism.

One reason The Onion isn’t taken more seriously is that it’s actually fun to read. In 1985 the cultural critic Neil Postman published the influential Amusing Ourselves to Death, which warned of the fate that would befall us if public discourse were allowed to become substantially more entertaining than, say, a Neil Postman book. Today newspapers are eager to entertain—in their Travel, Food, and Style sections, that is. But even as scope creep has made the average big-city tree killer less portable than a 10-year-old laptop, hard news invariably comes in a single flavor: Double Objectivity Sludge.

Overlooking the fact that the Onion actually has very little quasi-reality-based news, the writer concludes that the Onion is successful representing traditional journalism while the modern papers are floundering trying to make everyone happy.

My family gets both Chicago papers and even the weekday issues are quite large; I can't imagine most people read more than a few sections even after paying for the whole thing. Newspapers have been adding more sections and features and their readerships have been decreasing.

If done well, I think a 'just the meat and potatoes' newspaper would work, especially in cities with lots of commuters on public transportation. A paper like that would be cheaper since fewer sections require fewer specialized reporters as well as fewer pages require less effort to produce. Papers have to innovate if they want to stick around.

|

Unsolicited Newspaper Advice

As a quasi-media person it's interesting to observe how the two daily student newspapers change slightly from year to year.

Last I heard, the Badger Herald is still biggest student paper in the country. It still prints in a bigger size than Daily Cardinal. I've spoken to a few people in my classes about campus papers and they seem to prefer the Herald's bigger size. I don't really care since I pick up both. However, I do notice a lack of size when the Cardinal tends to fit about one and a half opinion pieces in a regular issue and the Herald runs at least two or three opinions.

Both papers have their own reputations for politics. Obviously, liberal voices are much stronger on campus. I don't mind, though. Where else could the socialist column be found between the columns of the campus democrats and republicans, let alone be printed at all?

Amongst the AP stories I read elsewhere, all of the generic filler pictures, and other stretching measures used to fill the big pages, the Herald seems bloated and unwieldy. Not to mention, I hate the 'newsprint on my hands' feeling and it looks and feels newsprinty gray.

Altogether, the Cardinal puts together a better physical package. It is a good size for fitting in classrooms and it's got a consistently sharp, classy layout.

Something that's been lacking this year in both papers is good comics. Considering original stuff, White Bread and Toast and the Herald Raccoon are usually good for some one-liners. Other than that, I'm not really dedicated to either bland multi-week plots or someone's daily non-adventures.

In the online world, I always browse through the Herald for comments on stories and the shout outs. The Herald is much more of a campus discussion that the other paper. I pretty much never look at the Cardinal online, they haven't given me a reason to.

On the bright side, word on the sidewalk is that non-anonymous comments will be coming to the online Cardinal.

|

Correction, Counter, & Continuing the Coverage Conversation

An observation in one of my posts last night was factually incorrect.

I reported on something that came up amongst a group of Madison blogger types last night, namely that "The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal have never done a piece on the student blogosphere." I made the initial statement at the gathering, nobody countered it at the time, and I posted it, so I'll claim it as my own.

Prima facie, I was wrong.

The Wisconsin State Journal, as a commenter constructively critiqued, did a frontpage story in December 9, 2004 on blogging by UW students and faculty, focusing almost exclusively on the UW law school, but mentioning a few national examples as well.

The paper didn't cover any student bloggers in a January 2006 piece on political blogging. Here are the Capital Newspaper archive results for "blogosphere" since 2000 if you want to dig further.

Now, as George Hesselberg of the WSJ sneered with self-righteous disdain in the LIB comments, I could have made a clean break at this point. Note the error. End of story.

Usually I would. I like when blogs get winnowed. See the RIAA filesharing post. But I'm not going to. There's much more to talk about.

As far as the thrust of the statement in question, namely insufficient coverage of the student blogosphere, I don't think it's all that far off the mark. Calling the 2004 student blogging piece adequate is, given the rate of change, almost like saying that an article on Madison at the time of Peck's Cabin is a sufficient story on Madison.

But let's stipulate that I was wrong for the sake of moving on. And to keep George Hesselberg from getting his undies in a bundle again, as unlikely as that may be (funny, I only recall his name from one benign LIB comment and a hack job of a report on James Block's '04 run for State Assembly).

Speaking as a graduate of the UW School of Journalism, I believe Madison mainstream media coverage, with the two major papers in mind, failed to cover adequately the UW-Madison student blogosphere as a phenomenon and part of the Madison community since 2005 - the multi-year period in which the phenomenon has truly blossomed. And if that period coincides with the lifespan of this blog, then so be it.

Here are my thoughts from earlier in the comments:

A great deal has changed in the student blogosphere since December 2004. It has become far more of an actual community, or cog in the larger community culture (actually talking about, analyzing, and debating issues of importance in the local/student community). It goes beyond the thoughts of a few relatively isolated individuals.

Admittedly, maybe we at LIB set up our soddie homestead in January 2005 just as the blogging frontier closed, so to speak. But it was precisely when that frontier closed that UW-Madison moved from "blogs" to the "blogosphere," if you ask me.

Perhaps I overestimate the importance of the student blogosphere.

Or perhaps others underestimated it.

|

Interview: Mike Westling of New Vernacular

Madison hosts the Online News Association Regional Conference later this week, looking primarily at media in the 2008 Presidential Race. While the event costs a few more continentals than I'm willing to shell out, as Erik aptly notes, it does look good.

Some big names are slated to present, including Captain Ed, blogger at Captain's Quarters; my former Journalism professor and human dynamo, Katy Culver; and Mike Westling, a former classmate of mine in Donald Downs' First Amendment course. Westling, a UW senior who blogs intermittently at The New Vernacular (he's back from shipwreck status lately and we're still on his blogroll) recently completed a paper on the political implications of Facebook.

So, I tossed a few questions his way (he notes he "always liked reading Letters in Bottles"), and he was kind enough to oblige.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brad V: You wrote your paper on Facebook and how it pertains to politics. Why that particular social networking system? MySpace has been very clear about its intentions to jump into presidential politics - why not that site?

Mike W: Thanks for giving me some space here at Letters in Bottles, Brad. I began my analysis with Facebook because I'm just more familiar with the site. I've ventured onto MySpace a couple times, but I just haven't yet put in the time to really get a feel for the network they've set up. From what I've seen, the MySpace network is centered much more around individual profiles while Facebook has put an emphasis on making connections with other members through groups and events. There seems to be a lot more grassroots political activity on Facebook, and that's a direct result of that network's structure.

Brad V: In 2004, Howard Dean was the "internet" candidate. Do you see any particular candidate or candidates as filling that role this time around? Ron Paul as the web sleeper? Also, after your research, are there any presidential candidates "winning" on the Facebook horse race front?

Mike W: I really don't think that any candidate is going to be defined as the "internet" candidate in the same way Dean was in 2004. All of the major candidates in both parties have taken notes on what worked for Dean and what didn't and they'll be incorporating that into their campaigns. All of the candidates are looking to supplement their campaigns with online action (several candidates announced with Web videos and all are pursuing small donors on the internet). Right now, Obama is definitely leading the Facebook race. Perhaps more interesting however, are all the negative Facebook groups that target specific candidates (especially Hillary Clinton).

Brad V: Barack Obama, shortly after notoriously taking over a MySpace account, made a pitch to have debates licensed under Creative Commons, a clear shout-out to the net crowd. Any other smart moves you've noticed? How would you advise a candidate to proceed from here on out to succeed online?

Mike W: I'm a big supporter of open debates, so I thought that was a great move that I believe all of the Democratic candidates have supported (maybe the Republicans too… does anyone else know?) John Edwards has created a separate Web site about the Iraq War that specifically targets liberal activists on that issue. Candidates need to remember that the major benefits of the Web come from organizing, fundraising, and generating media coverage. It's great to have all sorts of social networking and interactive stuff on your Web site, but most of the people who use those tools are already die-hard supporters. You want the die-hards to donate and show up at events.

Brad V: Any plans to dig further into your research in this area, as a graduate student, perhaps?

Mike W: I start a new job in June, so I won't be working on academic research in the near future. Still, I think the 2008 election will bring a lot of attention to social networking sites and determine whether Facebook can really engage young people or if it's more useful for checking out whether your buddy still watches Entourage. If you're interested in more quantitative research on Facebook and politics, I recommend looking at a study by two professors at Bentley College.

Brad V: As a student and blogger, what do you hope to bring to the conference later this week?

Mike W: I'm looking to give a perspective on what skills students need to develop in college if they're looking to work in journalism or political communications. A lot of journalism students go into the program thinking that all they want to do is write, but there's a lot more to it than that. To compete in the developing media landscape, grads need to understand blogging, social networking, dynamic content, and basic HTML code.

Brad V: I also see you worked on the Doyle Campaign in 2006. From your perspective, was the gubernatorial race here in Wisconsin mostly a result of national trends crashing on Midwestern shores or an organic homegrown affair?

Mike W: It was definitely a little bit of both. Ethics was a major issue on a national level and definitely became a focal point here in Wisconsin. Stem cell research is another national issue that has a special significance here. Even so, I'd say the majority of folks in Wisconsin were looking for continued leadership on fiscal responsibility and education.

(BV Aside: I can tell he's going to be working in the Doyle communications team :)

Brad V: This being LIB and you being a Poli Sci guy, naturally there's an obscure question to round things out. Who was the better president - John Quincy Adams or William Howard Taft? And why.

Mike W: Adams. He started the time-honored tradition of keeping the American presidency in as few families as possible.

|