GTG 2 NAVY! BRB!

This just in:

Kids? Different from adults.

You don't generally need government-sponsored reports to help you arrive at this kind of dangerous, outside-the-box conculsion... unless you're the Navy, which reveals this and more! in an unintentionally hilarious recruitment presentation picked up by Wired, Boing Boing, and other arbiters of online taste and culture. The report reveals that, among other things, kids are opting out of military service for what, at least according to the Navy, are either selfish or misguided reasons. Other pearls of wisdom include:

- Kids love the following: Green Day, Napoleon Dynamite, and defunct social networking sites.

- "His buddy list spans the globe. Best friend may be Chinese."


Could be this guy. Probably isn't.

- When you take a generation of American kids, couple them with motivated, involved parents, and add in a few dashes of relative peace, domestic economic stability, and, oh, I dunno, a lack of forced conscription, what do you think you get? Anyone. Navy, go ahead. Yes, that's right. "Narcissistic praise junkies". Very go-... wait, what?


Still your father's Navy.

Aside from being blessedly out-of-touch, this presentation also reveals the military's willingness to at least consider the effects of social technology on their future recruits. Though still generally dismissive of most "new-fangled" trends like online social networks, media integration, and the private sector, whoever put this presentation together obviously realizes that something big is coming as this new generation prepares to reach vote-n-kill age. Whether or not they can assemble a crack team of culture vultures who can really "rap" believeably with today's, or tomorrow's, youth is anyone's guess.

Oh, who am I kidding? The Navy is critically boned. Goddamned MySpace.

Curiously, just as I was about to post this, I noticed a related article on Salon.com's politics page. So that's what this sudden preoccupation with MySpace is about! Pretty sneaky, sis.

The Pinocchio Test

The ethics of political persuasion is a business of fine lines and stretched truths. Whenever I tell people that I'm majoring in political communication, the general response involves lots of knowing "aaaaaaah"s followed by some form of the phrase "you're going to be a spin doctor!" While this outcome isn't a forgone, or even desirable, conclusion, it's the first thing most people think of when they hear about someone trying to craft and mediate political messages. Alongside "rhetoric", "spin" may be one of the most villified terms in the political world.


This is not my job.

With all of this in mind, I'm glad to see that some people out there are helping popularize the other function of an education in political communication: the ability to debunk your opponent (or, in this case, all of the candidates at once). This is the aim of the washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker service. Intended to "shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues and the records of the various presidential candidates", the site offers in-depth breakdowns of candidate claims and advertising, along with relevant outside information that the original sources neglected to mention. In the end, each story is graded using the "Pinocchio Scale", a ranking system designed to guage just how big of a fib the original sources were offering.

While readers should come for the commentary (which includes a point-by-point examination of the MoveOn.org ad covered on this very blog a couple of weeks ago), they should stay for the chance to get in on the action themselves. The traditional investigative journalism on the site is augmented by a blog-style push for collaboration. As the group's mission statement notes -

We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We plan to issue our own opinion on factual disputes (see Pinocchio Test below), but it can be revised and updated when fresh evidence emerges.

Suddenly, the public has control of media watchdog powers and, what's more, they don't even have to go to the trouble of creating their own blog as a vehicle for sharing their ideas. The site not only acts as a clearinghouse for political advertising, but it does so through the collective efforts of journalists working in tandem with anonymous citizen researchers. As I said last week, the Washington Post seems to grasp the concepts of Web 2.0 better than some of their counterparts, and this lends further credence to that idea. Whether or not that translates into a major shift in media practices, or whether or not enough people are paying attention to make a difference, remains to be seen.

BOOK REVIEW: Dan Gillmor's "We the Media"

In We the Media, journalist Dan Gillmor applies his knowledge of the promises and pitfalls of current technologies and applies them to the burgeoning field of citizen journalism.

Originally published in the summer of 2004, Gillmor's work emerged during the first presidential election in which digital media, created by both campaigns, traditional news sources, and voters themselves, played a significant role. There was, and still remains, a general optimism about the power of blogs to shape and influence at the same rate as traditional corporate media sources, and Gillmor embraces that sentiment heartily. Whether it comes in the form of resistance to oppressive governments (such as the cases of bloggers in China and Iran) or unwillingness to swallow corporately-funded "objective news", the message found in We the Media is clear: if you don't like what's being said, say something yourself.

Gillmor's focus isn't limited merely to blogs, however. He takes into consideration how tried-and-true online communities like discussion groups and bulletin boards have taken on new significance in the age of media without borders. He also looks past the sensationalized coverage of peer-to-peer networks and identifies them for what they really are: the best way to transmit ideas and materials anonymously online. While that may not seem like an important distinction in the United States, its potential for use in areas of state-sponsored oppression is limitless.

There, perhaps, is the problem with all of these wonderful new mediums: with limitless potential comes limitless chance for misuse. Gillmor spends a fair amount of the latter half of his book popping the techno-utopian bubble by pointing out the inherent danger of a powerful media tool like the internet. One of the best sections deals with what happens to false information once it is released into the media world. While Gillmor's examples are engaging and illustrative, I could've used even more coverage on this topic. There are still people out there who believe everything they read on the internet, and any insight on how to increase society's critical barometers would've been appreciated.

in the end, We the Media serves a vital purpose, acting as a primer on new media, a llaunchpad from which further, in-depth study may spring. Gillmor's enthusiastic embrace of online, independent reporting is tempered by a sense of caution, but his general point holds true: in the right hands, grassroots cyberjournalism is the future of media.

ASSIGNMENT: Media Interactivity.

As part of my coursework in this semester's Media and Politics class, I'll occasionally be posting the results of some assignments given throughout the year. Last week, I looked at three different media outlets to see just how much audience participation they allow on their websites. The results are, as follows:



As one of the premier sources of transatlantic news, The Economist is known as much for its dry wit as it is for its in-depth coverage of news and foreign affairs. However, a trip to its website reveals that one area the newspaper won't be revolutionizing is reader interaction.

Like many of its print brethren, The Economist seems to be at a crossroads when it comes to citizen journalism - or even citizen opinion. One visit to its online edition reveals that interaction between the newspaper and its readers is sparse, and confined to only certain sections of the website (and thus, only certain types of content).

For instance, you won't find any comment sections offered on main section news articles. The news is presented exactly the same as it is in the print edition; the stories are still informative, certainly, but the lack of new, easily-implemented features makes the whole magazine seem a step behind. Sure, online comment threads can get pretty snarky, and The Economist does have a reputation to think about. However, protecting a publication's integrity at the expense of innovation might do more harm than good.

To be fair, The Economist does offer a reader response forum - sort of. To actually express your opinion while reading The Economist Online, you're limited to the comments pages of the newspaper's blog section, a "lightly moderated" section of reporter-run musing that occupies a lonely link under the website's "Opinion" heading. While these blog pages are nice enough, they're no substitute for allowing comments and debate on main page stories. Readers seem to agree; one look at the paltry comment numbers on most of the blog entries suggests that the newspaper's current efforts might be in vain.



CNN.com has always been my online news outlet of choice, mainly due to the fact that it's fast, easy, and has a short URL. When I want hard-hitting insights, I'll look elsewhere, but for daily briefings, CNN is king.

Much like The Economist, CNN does not offer a comment section on its main news articles. However, CNN has taken the leap into the world of citizen reporting, launching its I-Report service last summer in an effort to give voice - and video - to would-be journalists across the world.

After poking around I-Report for an hour or so last week, I realized that the service, while useful, suffers from wild inconsistencies in both quality and content. For every story on the Katrina rebuilding effort, there are two about fireworks or balloon races. In fact, out of the 43 stories on the main I-Report page when I checked this morning, 18 were related to weather or natural phenomenons, and only six dealt with "hard" news topics. The problem isn't that CNN allows people to post general interest stories; the problem is that these stories aren't separated into different sections or otherwise distinguished from one another. By giving general interest stories the same billing as hard news, CNN seriously undercuts I-Report's potential impact.

Elsewhere on the site, readers can participate in discussions of user-generated blog content (once again, moderated by reporters and generally steered towards non-political topics), or even browse photographs of other I-Reporters. While CNN probably won't be replacing Facebook or Myspecae any time soon, its attempt at fostering some sense of community is admirable. Though flawed, I-Report is generally well-executed and, assuming that its moderators learn how to strike the proper balance of news and feature stories, has the potential to impact the news-making process even more.



Finally, we come to my newly-adopted hometown newspaper, The Washington Post. After reviewing the web presence of an international newspaper and a cable news station, I figured that covering a major American newspaper would pretty much complete the hat trick.

The Post got on my good side right from the beginning by actually offering comment sections on all stories, not just the ones in watered-down blog sections. Users have to register and agree to a terms of service agreement before posting, in order to ensure that he discourse remains civil. For their part, the readers don't seem to mind: one story about an upcoming Republican candidate debate, posted early Wednesday morning, already had 109 comments by 11 am.

Another interesting feature offered by the Post is the "Save and Share" feature found within stories. The small grey box contains prominent links to Digg, del.ic.ious, Reddit, and the bookmarking services offered by Google, Yahoo!, and Facebook. The Post's is the first site I've visited that not only allows, but actively encourages the sharing of stories via aggregators like those mentioned above.

The Post doesn't stop there, though. They've still got three section of blogs (Political, Opinion, and Local), moderated discussion groups, and even a feedback section where readers can "yell, scream and otherwise exclaim about what the Post did wrong this week". Unlike the other two news outlets, where reader interaction comes at a premium, The Washington Post seems more than happy to led readers a voice in their online edition.

While The Washington Post is the clear winner in the interaction competition, CNN's I-Report, through it's emphasis on multimedia, still has the potential to provide the most moving, influential citizen reporting out there. Utilizing either of these ideas would also benefit The Economist, which seems unwilling to abandon their trusted broadcast model in favor of a newer, more interactive approach.

Don't tase me, bro.

Some fast observations from today's Washington Post:

- It looks like Newt Gingrich is the latest politician to hop on the Second Life bandwagon. While the idea of an explorable online campaign headquarters is appealing, I really wish we could get some of the candidates to establish a presence in an online world more condusive to debating the tough issues. Azeroth, for instance. Who wouldn't pay to see Clinton and Giuliani hash out their differences amidst the unforgiving winter of Alterac Valley? Shoot, I'd pay twice.


Lok'tar, fiscal conservatives.

- If you haven't seen this, where've you been?



Now, granted: Andrew Meyer is, by all accounts, a complete dingus. Some reports peg him as a perennial attention-seeker who was known for interrupting campus events, an idea which the Post uses to explain why people were clapping for the cops before UF's finest started going all "Rodney King II: Electric Boogaloo" on the kid.

Also granted: the kid may have resisted arrest, which technically gives the cops full discretion regarding the nastiness level warranted.

That being said, what? Has it really come to this? I mean, six cops? Was that really warranted? I'm all for acting in the interests of public safety, but this is just the limit. Testing out the equipment on a politically charged but otherwise harmless kid is completely out of line. Bravo to the students of the University of Florida who are taking action in defense of Meyer. Big ups, Gator Nation.

Funny, too, that people like this never seem to get the shit kicked out of them, but people like this do.

About the only positive outcome of this whole thing is the entry of the phrase "Don't tase me, bro" into the English lexicon. Somewhere, a t-shirt is being made.

- Finally, the Democrats are coming close to completing their much talked-about Atlas Project, a comprehensive information gathering effort aimed at streamlining the campaign strategy process by adding in a hefty dose of history. Does it strike anyone else as odd that a project like this had to exist at all? Shouldn't the Democratic Party have been archiving all of this stuff from the beginning instead of traipsing through basements in Michigan? And, why stop at 15 states? Frankly, I'd like to see this whole project extended to include the rest of the country. That way, the Dems could devise some sort of moderated, intra-party strategy wiki for use in election efforts for years to come. Obviously, the sheer fact that they're having to undertake such a project shows that the need is there. Action, therefore, is a must. Well, I think so, at least.

And now, a word from our sponsors. And John Edwards.

Keith Olbermann called it "a signal moment in the history of American television". In the fight to respond to George W. Bush's address Thursday night, John Edwards decided to cut out the middleman by, well, paying a different middleman. Edwards hedged his bets and, in an unprecedented move, purchased two minutes of commercial airtime devoted solely to responding to, and in most cases rebutting, the president's address.

This subversion of traditional information channels is a hallmark of Joe Trippi, the Democratic strategist whose reinvention as an Internet-savvy campaigner is credited with the early successes of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. Trippi, who now serves as a senior strategist with the Edwards campaign, is known for pushing the envelope. However, this most recent move by the Edwards camp brings up serious questions regarding the ever-changing role of advertising in politics.

In the days of the 24-hour media cycle and highly focused online campaigning, traditional political advertising may be facing an "adapt or perish" situation. Edwards' latest move seems to support this. With broadcast channels on the decline, television advertisements may become more specialized. In Edwards' case, his commercial granted him a guaranteed forum in which to express his ideas to a wide audience. Though his move may be out of need rather than the spirit of innovation (Edwards currently sits in a distant 3rd in the latest AP poll, behind front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama), it's intriguing nonetheless.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of advertising as a form of discourse. While the idea that anyone's free to take out a commercial and express their views, the prohibitive costs (the New York Times article linked above notes that Edwards' two minute spot cost upwards of $100,000) mean that it's still the rich who dictate what goes on the air and what doesn't. However, it would be interesting to measure the effectiveness of highly focused, targeted advertising in local elections where candidate airtime might come at less of a premium. What doesn't work for John Edwards might prove might effective for an alderman or councilwoman near you.

Another thing that bothers me is the idea of lending gravity to commercial airtime. Edwards' choice of a commercial medium as the forum for disseminating his message seems to bestow a sense of credibility that may not be completely warranted. Whenever the line begins to blur between serious discourse and this...:



...the ramifications could be far-reaching.

Also, feast.

Who Wants to Marry the President?

For the candidates in the 2008 presidential election, it appears the honeymoon is just beginning. In a move that signals the emergence of a new form of social voting blocs, a new political website, BridesDecide.com, hopes to "humanize the candidates and provide a forum for brides-to-be to discuss politics and the upcoming elections".

Now, I must admit, when I first heard about this idea, I may have snorted indignantly. On the surface, it seemed like this site was part of the anti-politics movement that places personality in front of policy when it comes to voting. The country's voters seem to have been voting for the guy they'd want to have a beer with for the past few elections, and we all know how that's turned out:


He'll tell you when he's had enough.

So, it was with great trepidation that I made my first visit into the world of bridal politics. I must say, all things considered, it wasn't nearly as surreal or uncomfortable as I'd expected. The site itself is well-produced and easy to navigate and, despite the name, the bridal content actually takes a backseat to things like policy comparisons and political discussion forums. In fact, BridesDecide.com offers some of the most engaging candidate profiles that I've seen so far in this election.

While the issues discussed are primarily those that appeal to female voters, they are treated with depth and insight. As a quick reference point for candidate positions, the site is actually quite handy. If you can look past the bridal trappings, there's actual content underneath.


Rumplestilskin gets the girl.

Perhaps more importantly, this site is an interesting example of the ways in which voting bloc are beginning to evolve thanks to the emergence of the social internet. Instead of joining communities bound together by common political beliefs, we're now seeing people join together based on other, politically neutral factors. Obviously, a site like BridesDecide.com will attract members of both parties to an even playing field where they can exchange ideas without being labeled as a homer (agreeing with a political site's philosophy) or a firebrand (a dissenter who shows up just to make trouble). By sharing a common bond outside of the political realm, the people in the BridesDecide.com community are more likely to start from a place of agreement regardless of political affiliation. Clearly, this may become the preferred means of political action on the internet, and could also help redefine how people look at themselves as voters.

Has anyone heard of any other communities like this that serve other social communities? Leave links in the comment section.

MoveOn takes it straight to the playground

Seriously?

This is the best we've got?

Speaking as someone who bought into the spirit of community activism that the people at MoveOn.org offered in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, it's really disappointing to see how out of whack their sense of the country's political climate has become. The same people who once decried the negative advertising from groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as "outrageous" continue to confound their own goals by engaging in the same kind of juvenile, school yard name-calling that they claim to be above.

Does this mean that the people at MoveOn don't have valid points to make? Of course not. General Petraeus deserves to be under the fullest scrutiny we as a nation can muster, and if something shady is, in fact, going on, then by all means, let us know. Just find a better way to do it than with a New York Times ad that apes "Seinfeld" without retaining any of the original's charm, timeliness, or yadda yadda yadda.


These guys? Clever. Churlish PACs? Not quite the same.

What pisses me off the most is that stuff like this plays directly into the hands of those people who like to paint progressive Democrats as godless, baby-spiking milquesops. Ads like this don't advance the conversation; rather, they make that little vein on Harry Reid's forehead come that much closer to just ending it all right in front of everyone and force the party to trot out old standbys like John Kerry to dismiss the ad's claims as "over the top". Are they? Again, not necessarily. But, by putting them in the context of vitriolic attack ads, MoveOn forces the Democrats to tiptoe and vacillate instead of focusing on the actual particulars of the Iraq mission. You catch more flies with honey than you do with lame puns, and MoveOn needs to hurry up and realize that. To steal from "Seinfeld" yet again, these ads just give the Republicans all of the hand in the relationship. The Democrats? No hand!


Hand: tough to get.

Man... I hate it when they make me agree with John Kerry. It's really no way to start the week.