Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama Gives a Strong Showing, Yet Clinton Again Refuses to Face Reality
After a strong, decisive victory in North Carolina, Senator Obama displayed a strong showing in Indiana where he lost by a slim margin, despite the fact that Senator Clinton was heavily favored in the state. His strong showing in Indiana is yet another reason for fellow Democrats to rally behind him and make his nomination official. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, vows to push ahead, regardless of the odds against her. Even Senator Clinton's own aids admit her chances of winning are slim, especially considering her campaign is essentially broke and continued fund raising is not expected to bring anything substantial. Even Clinton's own campaign advisers refused to comment on whether or not Mrs. Clinton donated personal money to keep her chances alive. This is clearly a telling sign that the never say die senator must face reality and throw in the towel. Her chances have now realistically dropped from slim to none, to officially none, yet despite the betterment of the Democratic party, Mrs. Clinton is determined to push on. Hopefully, someone with influence will be able to persuade her otherwise, but for now it seems as though the primary will drag on until at least June, to the delight of Republicans and McCain supporters everywhere.
Obama Hopes to Steal Indiana and Seal the Deal
Senator Obama has won North Carolina, reports the New York Times. The victory is good news for the Obama camp, even though he was expected to win the state. The real battle however, is the Indiana primary which is also happening tonight. Clinton is reported to have a small lead at this point, with only a small percentage of precincts reporting. If Mr. Obama can manage to pull out the upset victory he would send a strong message to the super-delegates. Many political analysts believe if Obama can sweep North Carolina and Indiana, it will be enough to end what has turned into an exhausting primary that many expect will last until June. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will be able to turn things around in Indiana and bring some measure of closure to the Democratic party. Every day that Senators Obama and Clinton continue to compete, the Republicans and their nominee Senator McCain seem to be one step closer to the White House doors. I have my fingers crossed that with a little luck it can all end tonight, allowing Senator Obama to move put his full attention on the general election, which grows ever closer.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The New York Times: Helping Set the Gold Standard for Feedback Journalism
The New York Times is renowned throughout the country and even the world as one of the most well respected journalistic institutions as well as one of the largest news outlets both in print and online. Despite heavy criticism, much of it politically aimed against the rather liberal Times, many consider the New York Times to be the gold standard of quality journalism. Published daily, with online news articles updating 24 hours a day, the Times is an extremely efficient, informative tool that can be accessed for free by anyone with internet access and an e-mail account in order to register. The Times covers basically every topic, from local New York news to what is going on in the arts and entertainment industries, to international stories varying in all ranges from small to large breaking news that makes headlines. The front page always consists of current issues that revolve often around politics, especially for the last several months where there has been extensive election coverage from background stories about the candidates to current results detailing where things currently stand and predictions for the future.
Online journalism has quickly changed the way which readers can get their news and just as important how they choose to respond. The days of devoted readers writing letters to the editor still exist, but they are no longer the only way to communicate your views and thoughts about a news item. The Times allows for readers to post instant comments relating to certain stories and keep the dialogue going back and forth as other interested participants can join the conversation and add their two cents or if they prefer just view the list of comments and keep whatever they are thinking and feeling to themselves. Often times forums involving controversial issues can lead to negative attacks from frustrated bloggers who tend to forget the issue at hand and instead focus on the person who posted a comment. Conversations that head away from the issue at hand and more towards personal insults are never productive, even if they can occasionally be nice for a good laugh. Mostly they tend to frustrate other readers who could care less about someone’s personal beef with a person who they will never meet or know in real life. However, due to many factors largely contingent on the type of person who reads the Times, I have rarely read comments on a story that have disintegrated to the point of personal attacks. Of course, that is not to say everyone shares the same opinion, but instead of personal attacks bloggers on the Times will use concise, logical arguments to make their point. The worst comment I have read was in response to an editorial about the McCain story several weeks ago about his possible past associations with a female lobbyist. Two people got into it about whether or not the story was slandering McCain’s reputation. A few comments later and the pair began generalizing all democrats and republicans, with one making the comment that still stands out to me at the time; all republicans are selfish and only care about themselves and those in the same tax bracket. I remember thinking at the time what does that have to do with the story alleging McCain’s ties with a female lobbyist? But still the comments were a generalization about all republicans and not really a personal attack, even though the person they were aimed at was an obvious member of the Republican Party.
There are many possible reasons for the educated, factual and mostly always civil comments posted on the Times website. For one, the Times does not allow comments on many juicy, controversial stories. There is definitely a selection process into deciding what stories you can or cannot give instant feedback. How the system works I am unsure but without a button labeled comments before a story you cannot post a comment. There is, however, a section in top stories, which gives you a list of the top 10 blogged stories. The Times top 10 stories, in every category not just top 10 blogged; all revolve around stories of substance. Recently, most of the top 10 blogged stories have been about politics and more specifically the race between Obama and Clinton. This shows a strong political following from readers who care about the direction this country is heading and what we as Americans stand for. This is in strong contrast to a paper such as the New York Post, where many of the top 10 blogged stories are always involving some sort of sexual escapade or some scandal involving a celebrity. Using a paper such as the Post to judge what Americans find important will yield a totally different result than using the Times. It really goes a long way in showing the different type of reader that is attracted to that type of paper compared with the substance of Times articles.
This is largely why I attribute the trend of New York Times bloggers to the type of person who reads the Times and not necessarily the fact that there are only selected articles you can post comments on. The Times remains one of the most substantive news outlets still available today, which I believe is the reason comments come from educated citizens who still care about the actual news not some story that belongs on the check out line at the supermarket. In an age when even supposed reliable news networks such as CNN fall into the ratings happy trend of covering tabloid issues, such as what is going on with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton the Times stays true to the essence of being a “newspaper” and actually covering real news. Every day the front page is covered with headlines involving top political, economical and international issues, not gossipy celebrity rumors about who slept with whom or who has developed a major drug habit. It is for this reason that people who are fed up with major news networks covering stories that used to belong solely on Entertainment Tonight turn to the New York Times for their news. This accounts for the average reader being someone who cares about actual new stories and thus when they read a story of interest they post intellectual comments that tend to stay on topic and not stray towards negative or personal attacks. That is not to say that all comments are serious and humorless. Sarcasm is a major tool that many bloggers use to convey their point and perhaps also show how ridiculous they feel about a story. Personal attacks are rare, as the average reader tends not to stoop to the level of ridiculing another blogger, so in lieu of negativity many people use sarcasm as a way to show how absurd they feel an issue is. I also feel sarcasm and humor towards important issues is a way many younger readers tend to show their dissatisfaction following a pattern of political humor from programs such as the Daily Show or Colbert Report, which are mega-hits, especially with younger audiences such as college students. The Times has built a large, loyal following among the older generations who have used the Times as their source of news for their entire life. A perfect example of this would be my grandfather who used to read the Times every day, without fail, from cover to cover. However, similar to how many younger people have become involved in politics, I believe many have also begun to care about actual news and thus have gravitated towards the Times. Many of my friends from Umass, as well as my high school friends from Universities all over the country, set the Times as their homepage on the laptop and subscribe for free (free things are very popular with college students). This way they are able to get real news every time they use their computer. In fact, I begun using the Times as my homepage a few years ago, following the advice of one of my high school friends who advocated it as the best way to stay informed on the current, up to date issues that really matter. This was way before I had ever blogged myself or thought about using a blog as a way to share my opinion about a news item.
Reader feedback is changing the way journalism is used by dictating how news organizations portray their stories to readers. In fact, GoogleNews announced a new format for bloggers to comment on fresh stories, a clever ploy to increase popularity and compete with news giants like the Times. The story published by the Times on December 24 of last year by Noam Cohen expresses how the new format works. “The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, which presents links and summaries from 4,500 news sources, including the familiar big players, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article.” This vastly increases the levels of instant feedback journalists will receive and is a telling sign for the future. The days of letters to the editor are fast fading, as are the days of using a pen and paper to convey your feelings and frustrations. Accountability has always been a corner stone in the fundamentals of journalists everywhere, and now using the Internet as a medium to communicate, readers from all over the world can contribute their thoughts and beliefs instantly, making sure that concerned people everywhere can have their voices and ideas heard. The Times is the gold standard for intellectual, substantive journalism. As such, they are also setting the trend for productive, intellectual feedback helping the field of journalism improve and blossom to it fullest potential.
Online journalism has quickly changed the way which readers can get their news and just as important how they choose to respond. The days of devoted readers writing letters to the editor still exist, but they are no longer the only way to communicate your views and thoughts about a news item. The Times allows for readers to post instant comments relating to certain stories and keep the dialogue going back and forth as other interested participants can join the conversation and add their two cents or if they prefer just view the list of comments and keep whatever they are thinking and feeling to themselves. Often times forums involving controversial issues can lead to negative attacks from frustrated bloggers who tend to forget the issue at hand and instead focus on the person who posted a comment. Conversations that head away from the issue at hand and more towards personal insults are never productive, even if they can occasionally be nice for a good laugh. Mostly they tend to frustrate other readers who could care less about someone’s personal beef with a person who they will never meet or know in real life. However, due to many factors largely contingent on the type of person who reads the Times, I have rarely read comments on a story that have disintegrated to the point of personal attacks. Of course, that is not to say everyone shares the same opinion, but instead of personal attacks bloggers on the Times will use concise, logical arguments to make their point. The worst comment I have read was in response to an editorial about the McCain story several weeks ago about his possible past associations with a female lobbyist. Two people got into it about whether or not the story was slandering McCain’s reputation. A few comments later and the pair began generalizing all democrats and republicans, with one making the comment that still stands out to me at the time; all republicans are selfish and only care about themselves and those in the same tax bracket. I remember thinking at the time what does that have to do with the story alleging McCain’s ties with a female lobbyist? But still the comments were a generalization about all republicans and not really a personal attack, even though the person they were aimed at was an obvious member of the Republican Party.
There are many possible reasons for the educated, factual and mostly always civil comments posted on the Times website. For one, the Times does not allow comments on many juicy, controversial stories. There is definitely a selection process into deciding what stories you can or cannot give instant feedback. How the system works I am unsure but without a button labeled comments before a story you cannot post a comment. There is, however, a section in top stories, which gives you a list of the top 10 blogged stories. The Times top 10 stories, in every category not just top 10 blogged; all revolve around stories of substance. Recently, most of the top 10 blogged stories have been about politics and more specifically the race between Obama and Clinton. This shows a strong political following from readers who care about the direction this country is heading and what we as Americans stand for. This is in strong contrast to a paper such as the New York Post, where many of the top 10 blogged stories are always involving some sort of sexual escapade or some scandal involving a celebrity. Using a paper such as the Post to judge what Americans find important will yield a totally different result than using the Times. It really goes a long way in showing the different type of reader that is attracted to that type of paper compared with the substance of Times articles.
This is largely why I attribute the trend of New York Times bloggers to the type of person who reads the Times and not necessarily the fact that there are only selected articles you can post comments on. The Times remains one of the most substantive news outlets still available today, which I believe is the reason comments come from educated citizens who still care about the actual news not some story that belongs on the check out line at the supermarket. In an age when even supposed reliable news networks such as CNN fall into the ratings happy trend of covering tabloid issues, such as what is going on with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton the Times stays true to the essence of being a “newspaper” and actually covering real news. Every day the front page is covered with headlines involving top political, economical and international issues, not gossipy celebrity rumors about who slept with whom or who has developed a major drug habit. It is for this reason that people who are fed up with major news networks covering stories that used to belong solely on Entertainment Tonight turn to the New York Times for their news. This accounts for the average reader being someone who cares about actual new stories and thus when they read a story of interest they post intellectual comments that tend to stay on topic and not stray towards negative or personal attacks. That is not to say that all comments are serious and humorless. Sarcasm is a major tool that many bloggers use to convey their point and perhaps also show how ridiculous they feel about a story. Personal attacks are rare, as the average reader tends not to stoop to the level of ridiculing another blogger, so in lieu of negativity many people use sarcasm as a way to show how absurd they feel an issue is. I also feel sarcasm and humor towards important issues is a way many younger readers tend to show their dissatisfaction following a pattern of political humor from programs such as the Daily Show or Colbert Report, which are mega-hits, especially with younger audiences such as college students. The Times has built a large, loyal following among the older generations who have used the Times as their source of news for their entire life. A perfect example of this would be my grandfather who used to read the Times every day, without fail, from cover to cover. However, similar to how many younger people have become involved in politics, I believe many have also begun to care about actual news and thus have gravitated towards the Times. Many of my friends from Umass, as well as my high school friends from Universities all over the country, set the Times as their homepage on the laptop and subscribe for free (free things are very popular with college students). This way they are able to get real news every time they use their computer. In fact, I begun using the Times as my homepage a few years ago, following the advice of one of my high school friends who advocated it as the best way to stay informed on the current, up to date issues that really matter. This was way before I had ever blogged myself or thought about using a blog as a way to share my opinion about a news item.
Reader feedback is changing the way journalism is used by dictating how news organizations portray their stories to readers. In fact, GoogleNews announced a new format for bloggers to comment on fresh stories, a clever ploy to increase popularity and compete with news giants like the Times. The story published by the Times on December 24 of last year by Noam Cohen expresses how the new format works. “The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, which presents links and summaries from 4,500 news sources, including the familiar big players, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article.” This vastly increases the levels of instant feedback journalists will receive and is a telling sign for the future. The days of letters to the editor are fast fading, as are the days of using a pen and paper to convey your feelings and frustrations. Accountability has always been a corner stone in the fundamentals of journalists everywhere, and now using the Internet as a medium to communicate, readers from all over the world can contribute their thoughts and beliefs instantly, making sure that concerned people everywhere can have their voices and ideas heard. The Times is the gold standard for intellectual, substantive journalism. As such, they are also setting the trend for productive, intellectual feedback helping the field of journalism improve and blossom to it fullest potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)