Sorry it has been so quiet out here. I've been busy. However, I did want to post some round ups and some other quick things and then get back to life.
The last week has been a quiet few days for political news, in the wake of John Edwards' announcement and the death of President Gerald Ford. But that probably won't last long. The 2008 presidential race is becoming very interesting to watch with all kinds of candidates sticking their toes in, wondering, What about me?
On the WSJ redesign, I must say that it is really great. While it lopped off an entire column, the color is crisp and the reporting is in-depth and worth reading. It is almost like reading the Sunday New York Times every day. It is that good. I've always been impressed with the articles - that's the reason I started a subscription - but now it is better than ever. Here is what Yahoo! Finance says about it: ["Wall Street Journal Unveils New Design"].
The Internet
A few days ago, Janice - and I believe this is Janice from Area603 but I'm not sure - asked me the following:
First, the Internet has become a major force in everything we do in our lives, not just elections. From personal communication, to advertising, to how we get news and entertainment, almost everyone and everything is affected by the Internet. The Web will probably continue to be a force to be dealt with on many different levels.
Campaigns need Web sites to communicate with voters. Voters need Web sites to actually find out stuff about candidates since much of the broadcast media doesn't really cover campaigns in-depth anymore. The newspapers continue to do a pretty good job and there are some pretty good political television reporters, like Andy Hiller of WHDH, Jon Keller of WBZ, Joe Battenfeld, a print reporter who I think still works for Fox25, all in Boston, and Scott Spradling of WMUR here in New Hampshire. But everything else is spotty at best. Radio talk shows tend to only have hosts blathering on and on. There are even fewer doing real news in most markets. So the voters have become more reliant on the Web for information.
Whether the Internet will have a greater role than usual, I don't honestly know. There is a burnout factor which I don't think we are all taking into consideration. The Internet could eventually reach a point where it maxes out. In some ways, it already has. Like television, there are too many choices. Our lives are getting busier and busier which means that there is less time for surfing the Web or doing anything else. I think people could get so bombarded by it that they will turn away from it, similar to the way they have turned away from network television. Why watch when you can do? I know that personally, I have turned back to physical newspapers and away from the Web. I like smelling the ink and looking at the way in which ads are laid out on pages and things like that. Reading the new WSJ in hand, for example, and then going to the Web site to link a story I've seen are two different experiences entirely. One is clinical and mechanical, the other is fun, for lack of a better way of saying it.
Second, I think blogging will be influential as elections continue but not because of the reasons which some people might think. Blogging, which is considered a new medium, isn't much different from the leafleting and print sheets posted during the days of Thomas Paine. The only difference is the technology. Instead of a printing press, I have a laptop. Instead of posting my prints on the marquee outside the local tavern, I use the Web. It has become easier to share thoughts and ideas. It is think, point, click, and you're done. Since the beginning of time, humankind has wanted - and needed - to be heard and blogging provides this outlet for people. Take it from someone who was a notorious letter to the editor writer who almost never writes anything to the papers anymore. The recent UL piece is the first thing I've had in the paper for almost a year. But, I don't need to write to the paper. I can write here and other places, like Area603. A letter writer may not get as much traffic or readership but who cares. That isn't really the idea of the process.
My roundabout point is that blogging will have influence over politics and elections because it is a broad way of communicating thoughts and ideas with others. Voters will be able to find more information than they ever were able to find before and campaigns will be able to communicate with voters better than they were able to do before. Some people will be left behind - especially those folks on the bottom end who can't afford a computer or Internet. But you can get Internet at the library for free in most cities and towns. In addition, the more people put ideas and thoughts out there, the more they share with others. It isn't much different than the old days of communicating political information at Elk's Lodges and Bingo Halls ... it is just more widespread than it ever was before.
I do worry about the civility of debate and discourse in the process of blogging and the use of the Internet. You can get into some pretty rabid arguments out here in cyberspace. The art of the argument is part of the fun. The key is to remember that we are all Americans and we need to respect the opinions of everyone because of that. It can be hard to do but it is the only way.
Saddam
Of course, as we've all seen, Saddam was executed. I'm not a death penalty advocate at all but I must admit that if anyone should have been executed, it was probably Saddam. But, all the other people who have blood on their hands because they helped Saddam kill thousands, should also face some sort of punishment. Don'tcha think? Here are a couple of columns which make some good points. Andrew Cockburn has this piece: ["So Long to 'Our' Tyrant"]. And some pretty good media commentary here, about the spotty coverage: ["The Low Profile: CNN and the New York Times Execute a Denial of History"].
2008 Roundup
Here are some of the articles over the last few days:
This Gannett columnist has a look at 2007: ["In politics, '07 could be fast, furious, transformational"]. The six questions are good ones to ask.
This article looks at going after the MySpace crowd: ["Campaigns head to MySpace"].
Over at the Statesman, this columnist is looking at a field of firsts: ["Diverse presidential campaign could produce some historic 'firsts'"].
While this column looks at conservatives: ["Breaking Down the 2008 Presidential Race"].
And this article outlines organizing in Florida: ["2008 race heating up here"].
John Cox gets a light crowd in Nashua: ["Five people show up for presidential candidate's fundraiser"]. Hey, at least he got five! Cox was also in Concord, being interviewed by Karen Testerman for her show on WDER and also made the news on WKXL 1450.
Giuliani, lost: ["Revealed: Rudy's '08 battle plans"]. Well, his play book, at least. He also hosted some New Hampshire bigwigs recently: ["N.H. bigs see Rudy Prez run"].
The AP looks at Sen. Chris Dodd's ability to raise money here: ["Dodd well-positioned to raise money for 2008 presidential bid"].
Sen. Sam Brownback will announce in two weeks: ["Brownback to move on presidential bid"]. With Tommy Thompson also sniffing around: ["Thompson Says Core Supporters Pledge $1 Million to His Campaign"]. News from both of these guys is kind of a no-brainer. With Sen. George Allen and Sen. Rick Santorum out of the race, there is a conservative vacuum which can't be filled by Newt, The Adulterer, or "Guy Smiley" Romney. And there are people who don't really like Sen. John McCain. There is room for a dark horse. Keep an eye out for the press to start looking into some of Thompson's cushy corporate welfare deals he lined up for friends when he was governor. It is bound to get more tread if he runs.
Lastly, who is Lanakila Washington? Well, you can find out here: ["An Official Presidential Announcement"].
The last week has been a quiet few days for political news, in the wake of John Edwards' announcement and the death of President Gerald Ford. But that probably won't last long. The 2008 presidential race is becoming very interesting to watch with all kinds of candidates sticking their toes in, wondering, What about me?
On the WSJ redesign, I must say that it is really great. While it lopped off an entire column, the color is crisp and the reporting is in-depth and worth reading. It is almost like reading the Sunday New York Times every day. It is that good. I've always been impressed with the articles - that's the reason I started a subscription - but now it is better than ever. Here is what Yahoo! Finance says about it: ["Wall Street Journal Unveils New Design"].
The Internet
A few days ago, Janice - and I believe this is Janice from Area603 but I'm not sure - asked me the following:
What role do you think the internet (especially blogging) will make in the upcoming presidential elections, if anything. Will it be a greater/lesser/same factor as the last election and why?Good questions. Thank you for them and thank you for reading.
First, the Internet has become a major force in everything we do in our lives, not just elections. From personal communication, to advertising, to how we get news and entertainment, almost everyone and everything is affected by the Internet. The Web will probably continue to be a force to be dealt with on many different levels.
Campaigns need Web sites to communicate with voters. Voters need Web sites to actually find out stuff about candidates since much of the broadcast media doesn't really cover campaigns in-depth anymore. The newspapers continue to do a pretty good job and there are some pretty good political television reporters, like Andy Hiller of WHDH, Jon Keller of WBZ, Joe Battenfeld, a print reporter who I think still works for Fox25, all in Boston, and Scott Spradling of WMUR here in New Hampshire. But everything else is spotty at best. Radio talk shows tend to only have hosts blathering on and on. There are even fewer doing real news in most markets. So the voters have become more reliant on the Web for information.
Whether the Internet will have a greater role than usual, I don't honestly know. There is a burnout factor which I don't think we are all taking into consideration. The Internet could eventually reach a point where it maxes out. In some ways, it already has. Like television, there are too many choices. Our lives are getting busier and busier which means that there is less time for surfing the Web or doing anything else. I think people could get so bombarded by it that they will turn away from it, similar to the way they have turned away from network television. Why watch when you can do? I know that personally, I have turned back to physical newspapers and away from the Web. I like smelling the ink and looking at the way in which ads are laid out on pages and things like that. Reading the new WSJ in hand, for example, and then going to the Web site to link a story I've seen are two different experiences entirely. One is clinical and mechanical, the other is fun, for lack of a better way of saying it.
Second, I think blogging will be influential as elections continue but not because of the reasons which some people might think. Blogging, which is considered a new medium, isn't much different from the leafleting and print sheets posted during the days of Thomas Paine. The only difference is the technology. Instead of a printing press, I have a laptop. Instead of posting my prints on the marquee outside the local tavern, I use the Web. It has become easier to share thoughts and ideas. It is think, point, click, and you're done. Since the beginning of time, humankind has wanted - and needed - to be heard and blogging provides this outlet for people. Take it from someone who was a notorious letter to the editor writer who almost never writes anything to the papers anymore. The recent UL piece is the first thing I've had in the paper for almost a year. But, I don't need to write to the paper. I can write here and other places, like Area603. A letter writer may not get as much traffic or readership but who cares. That isn't really the idea of the process.
My roundabout point is that blogging will have influence over politics and elections because it is a broad way of communicating thoughts and ideas with others. Voters will be able to find more information than they ever were able to find before and campaigns will be able to communicate with voters better than they were able to do before. Some people will be left behind - especially those folks on the bottom end who can't afford a computer or Internet. But you can get Internet at the library for free in most cities and towns. In addition, the more people put ideas and thoughts out there, the more they share with others. It isn't much different than the old days of communicating political information at Elk's Lodges and Bingo Halls ... it is just more widespread than it ever was before.
I do worry about the civility of debate and discourse in the process of blogging and the use of the Internet. You can get into some pretty rabid arguments out here in cyberspace. The art of the argument is part of the fun. The key is to remember that we are all Americans and we need to respect the opinions of everyone because of that. It can be hard to do but it is the only way.
Saddam
Of course, as we've all seen, Saddam was executed. I'm not a death penalty advocate at all but I must admit that if anyone should have been executed, it was probably Saddam. But, all the other people who have blood on their hands because they helped Saddam kill thousands, should also face some sort of punishment. Don'tcha think? Here are a couple of columns which make some good points. Andrew Cockburn has this piece: ["So Long to 'Our' Tyrant"]. And some pretty good media commentary here, about the spotty coverage: ["The Low Profile: CNN and the New York Times Execute a Denial of History"].
2008 Roundup
Here are some of the articles over the last few days:
This Gannett columnist has a look at 2007: ["In politics, '07 could be fast, furious, transformational"]. The six questions are good ones to ask.
This article looks at going after the MySpace crowd: ["Campaigns head to MySpace"].
Over at the Statesman, this columnist is looking at a field of firsts: ["Diverse presidential campaign could produce some historic 'firsts'"].
While this column looks at conservatives: ["Breaking Down the 2008 Presidential Race"].
And this article outlines organizing in Florida: ["2008 race heating up here"].
John Cox gets a light crowd in Nashua: ["Five people show up for presidential candidate's fundraiser"]. Hey, at least he got five! Cox was also in Concord, being interviewed by Karen Testerman for her show on WDER and also made the news on WKXL 1450.
Giuliani, lost: ["Revealed: Rudy's '08 battle plans"]. Well, his play book, at least. He also hosted some New Hampshire bigwigs recently: ["N.H. bigs see Rudy Prez run"].
The AP looks at Sen. Chris Dodd's ability to raise money here: ["Dodd well-positioned to raise money for 2008 presidential bid"].
Sen. Sam Brownback will announce in two weeks: ["Brownback to move on presidential bid"]. With Tommy Thompson also sniffing around: ["Thompson Says Core Supporters Pledge $1 Million to His Campaign"]. News from both of these guys is kind of a no-brainer. With Sen. George Allen and Sen. Rick Santorum out of the race, there is a conservative vacuum which can't be filled by Newt, The Adulterer, or "Guy Smiley" Romney. And there are people who don't really like Sen. John McCain. There is room for a dark horse. Keep an eye out for the press to start looking into some of Thompson's cushy corporate welfare deals he lined up for friends when he was governor. It is bound to get more tread if he runs.
Lastly, who is Lanakila Washington? Well, you can find out here: ["An Official Presidential Announcement"].
1 comment:
Hi, Tony. John Cox was actually in Nashua for a meet-and-greet, but hey, EVEN PRINT REPORTERS can get things wrong! ;-) The Union Leader aticle on Sunday by Michael Cousineau (it's apparently not online, sadly) was extremely well done and very fair. I'll take five good people over 1,500 looky-loos of whom most aren't really interested anyway.
Post a Comment