When are Races Won?

When are Races Won? (3/14/2012) Last summer I wrote a column titled, “The Media Elects Presidents;” a now prophetic article regarding the influence of corporate media on the nominations. Since the spring of 2011 the Republican nomination process has been underway although it did not officially start until the first Tuesday in January of this year. However, long ago it appeared a decision was made anointing Mitt Romney as the heir to the Republican nomination. My goal here is not to offer an opinion on the qualifications of the candidates, but instead want to analyze the process. Watching the recent Russian elections many media outlets around the world reported possible election fraud and manipulation. I believe Americans have always believed our elections were above such accusations and not subject to manipulation or theft. However, many seem to acknowledge questionable tactics in municipal elections like Chicago’s mayoral races, either like the Daly’s in the past or the most recent residency issues of Emmanuel. Similarly, the Bush and Gore vote division propelled true questions of integrity in our own system to the forefront of our attention. As of this week, there are only four candidates in the race: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Of the bound delegates, according to the GOP web site, Romney leads with 339, Gingrich is second with 107, and Santorum is third with 95 delegates. Paul is clearly trailing in fourth place with 22 awarded delegates. Throughout the nomination race I have been puzzled by reporting from major media outlets like the case where Santorum won the Iowa Caucus, not Romney, even though the media was quick to report differently. Although Romney holds a sizable lead over his next closest competitor, only one-third of the total delegates have been awarded. Watching the process last summer and fall demonstrated a candidate’s demise could arrive without much warning. Regardless, since my original column eight months ago Romney has been the declared winner. I feel the problem with the constant polling and predictions of who will win is the voter apathy created. First instance, if Romney is the winner – as declared by the media before the race started, then why bother voting? When a voter believes his vote no longer matters he chooses to not participate in the process and ultimately fulfills the hypothesis that his vote no longer matters. If results were held back, speculation by the media held back, and no forecasts were made I assert the voters would remain more objective in the process and choose the candidate they feel best qualified for the job.

The Media Elects Presidents

The Media Elects Presidents (6/8/2011) Over the last 50 years I believe there has been a dramatic turn in Presidential elections. Arguably the headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman” in 1948 is reflective of media bias and anticipation toward election outcomes. Most academics will acknowledge the 1960 Presidential debate outcome was not determined by the quality of the candidate speeches, but instead by appearance on television. Nixon articulated much stronger responses but was no match for Kennedy’s suave television charm. Today the media is controlling who wins the nomination and the election in several ways. One method is withholding information and using editorial prejudice to positively influence opinion about candidates. Two documented cases exemplify this. First, the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal unreported by major broadcast and print outlets until Drudge’s persistence forced the issue to headlines and impeachment of the President. Second, the New York Times failure to print an article deemed damaging concerning the Obama/ACORN relationship which may have brought a different election outcome and it took the whimsical undercover video by James O’Keefe to finally destroy the organization. The second method of influence is the prejudicial nature of coverage of candidates. For example, The Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy conducted a study of 5,374 media narratives about the presidential candidates from January 1 through March 9, 2008. The study found that Obama received 69% favorable coverage and Clinton received 67%, compared to only 43% favorable media coverage of McCain. An October 29, 2008 study found 29% of stories about Obama to be negative, compared to 57% of stories about McCain being negative. Finally, my last concern regarding media influence on politics is the pervasive use of public opinion polls. With every candidate announcement regarding potential Republican candidates a comparison poll is published. On NBC News May 26th nightly program speculation around Palin’s presidential announcement was offset by a poll showing candidate positioning, with Romney in the lead. The media has given far more coverage to Romney, Gingrich, and Palin than CPAC straw poll winner Ron Paul and Tea Party favorites Cain and Bachman. With an election 15 months away the media is focused on manipulating public opinion to control an outcome. Imagine what our election process would be like if there were no polls, no television pundits, and no scandalous coverage. Imagine speeches and debates, presented factually, without media editorial. I am not asserting to curtail freedom of the press, but instead push to present unedited coverage, eliminate polling, and present opinion as such, not news.

Small Town Newspaper

Small Town Newspaper (11/16/2011) Imagine a world where no newspaper exists. Very soon we may live in such a time. Most people treasure newspapers as milestones of current events. For example, in my possession I have framed front page issues of The Chicago Tribune from November 23 and 24, 1963 detailing Kennedy and Oswald's assassinations. History books show pictures of Truman holding The Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948 announcing his defeat to Dewey. Since the printing press was invented by Gutenberg around 1440, people have used shared printing to record history and news and this the newspaper has been the most popular daily diary of our world. Today, historians scour pages of black and white text to create the synopsis that becomes our history books. However these summaries are swayed by opinion and filter critical details. The average person typically keeps newspapers clippings; I have copies of my high school athletic feats, graduation announcement and other personal milestones. Most of us save birth, death and wedding announcements. In each of these cases without a local newspaper there would be no record. As I paged through last week's paper I read about school children, Council meetings, local sports, and crime. Arguably information is captured digitally via the Web and television, but only the small town newspaper remains accessible to everyone. A March 22, 2009 Time magazine article reported on a Pew Media analysis focusing on the question, “what happens when a town loses its newspaper?” For small towns the consensus seems to be one of indifference other than the loss of primary news sources via the “ecosystem” of local journalism feeding other outlets because only a small town newspaper provides the depth and diversity of local news. Unfortunately, newspapers are closing at an amazing rate, hundreds per year from major cities to the smallest towns. The brick and mortar business model is giving way to a low-cost digital media that many assert will ultimately replace print. As you page through this week’s paper take an extra moment to scrutinize each page, looking for particulars normally passed. For instance, read the crime blotter and note the detail forever saved to the historical record. Around the local section imagine looking back 50 years from now through an archive at the photos and current events of the day. While reading the editorial page’s letters and opinions picture future school children doing research on “The Great Recession” and compiling future history books from the non-digital account of today’s woe. I argue newspapers will always have a place in our world and remain the only reliable method to record history and present opinion. Support for our papers must start via circulation and supporting the advertisers. Patronize the businesses you see in print and let them know it was printed media dollars that brought you to their establishment. Let your editor know how columns impact you and take every opportunity available to contribute editorial content.

I call Bullsh-t

I call Bullsh-t (11/2/2011) It is disappointing to see the criticism emerging around the Herman Cain presidential candidacy. The irony spewed forth by the media is appalling and I call bullsh-t on this issue. For whatever reason there is a generally accepted media opinion of republicans as racist. The election of Barak Obama was a historic moment for America, the first non-white elected to office. There will be many other firsts to the presidency in the future, this is just the start. In 2008 accusations flew that conservatives were anti-Obama because he was black. The problem then became one of questioning any comments, statements, or plans by candidate Obama as being made by a racist, not by a person of differing opinions. Conservatives were shut-down and ultimately afraid to speak their mind regarding the questionable path down which President Obama wanted to take America. Fast forward three years and conservatives are again targeted by the liberal media bias as racist. Ironically, conservatives are now racists because many support a black man running for president. Herman Cain is a capable businessman with more experience and personal successes than Barak Obama. Instead of organizing communities he ran the Federal Reserve of Kansas City and one of the largest food retailers in the country. His 1994 debate against President Clinton over healthcare reform highlighted his capabilities as a knowledgeable man regarding issues. Personally, I have enjoyed Cain’s conservative radio show and never questioned his race as a factor regarding his views. Over the last three weeks MSNBC has been at the front of the hypocrisy regarding these issues. On October 14, Ed Shultz, host of the “Ed Shultz Show” commented, "You think about white Republicans who don't like black folks," Schultz explained. "It's almost as if this guy is trying to warm up to them and tell them what they want to hear." Last week On Martin Bashir's television program, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said that Republicans are supporting Herman Cain because of his race. It appears in America to not be racist one has to be a democrat. It also appears even if you are black, you can be racist if questioning the education gaps and the possibility some fault lies personally with people. For my entire life democrats have successfully pandered to minorities in our country under the guise the only solution is through government to increase personal well-being. Most businessmen and Herman Cain too, will argue that success comes from individual achievement, not government charity. I do not want to be part of the government plantation and argue my support of Herman Cain does not make me racist. To MSNBC and the liberal media I call bullsh-t.

Taking a Break

One thing about living in Florida is how easy it is to fall victim to the sensationalism of hurricane reporting by local television stations. We crave wanting to know where Anna, Bill, Claudette and any of our other alphabetical list of storms is headed. It is nearly impossible to escape this invasion of news as the ticker or radar picture instantly showing location, intensity, and projected path of destruction is always on once the storm has been announced. This information invades our lives through print, computers, radio, television, and even local conversation.

I would argue that our lives in general have become much the same way regarding all news. In ancient times (before the 1980s), there were three networks, a public TV station, and changing channels necessitated getting off the couch so our exposure to the news was much more limited. Sure, an AM radio station typically played hourly updates, but our news was only available in the morning, at noon, or on the major networks in the evening. Paul Harvey was the extent of opinion and we recognized him as an entertainer. At night, Johnny Carson poked fun at events of the day, but the monologue was respectful and limited. Now, even local television stations now run two hours of “news” in the evening. Ironically, most of the news is not news though, but polling data reports, conjecture, and opinions.

You’re reading this paper, this page of the paper, and this article. Most likely, like me you enjoy the news and keeping up with information. Recently I realized though, like hurricane news, the political and economic information I enjoy is changing at a slower pace than I desire. I found myself wanting more, craving more and starving for the latest news tidbit to radically change the political landscape. Each day I regularly visit web sites to read newspapers and review news sources. Fortunately, I cancelled cable television over a year ago and am no longer bombarded by the pontificates on different networks sharing their opinions, not reporting news.

Recently, I realized I was feeling a level of anxiety. Nothing bad, nothing in particular caused me anxiety. But instead, like the ongoing threat of a hurricane offshore that will more than likely miss central Florida, I felt the same anxiety watching the news and waiting, anticipating, and starving for the next story detailing some miniscule change in the health care debate or the current economic environment. Thus, I decided to take a break.

This past Sunday I told my wife that my goal for the week was to avoid the “news”. No web sites, no talk radio, no seeking of information that I had no control over and could not impact. However, out of fairness, if I encountered news I would absorb it. So far my experience has been refreshing, like a vacation. I realized I could break my addiction and habit to seeking and looking for news. The next time a hurricane is coming I suggest you try it. A once a day check of conditions is more than adequate. The same holds true for most your exposure to talk radio, cable news, or evening network news. Once a day, read the paper or watch the news. Minute by minute; remember you are subjecting yourself to opinion and conjecture. It’s not worth your time.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.