Better Know a Noble

Fetch my Blog, Spot!

For the first time in nearly a century, professional journalists face a formidable challenge to their dominance in the news industry: the Blogosphere. On any event, topic, or study, blogs can offer just as much valuable, insightful information as the best newspapers. Given the options, how should the average news consumer proceed?

My suggestion would be to choose depending on the type of story being covered. What are the advantages of professional journalism? One is the training to observe an event without becoming emotionally engaged. Zayed, an Iraqi blogger from the heart of Baghdad, reports on the daily condition of Iraqis in his blog Healing Iraq. He is an incredible eye witness to the Gulf War experience. Yet, does he have the emotional fortitude to exclude himself from the scene and report objectively? More likely, the experienced journalist can handle the task better than an embedded participant.

There are other types of stories, however, that the blogger can offer much more thorough coverage. Dan Gilmore, writer for The San Jose Mercury News, admits often that his readers have a much better grasp of the high-tech field than he does. He can relate what Steve Jobs actually said at the conference and still miss the important implications because he lacks the requisite techy background. Most journalists are trained in Grad school to be generalists, not specialists. A tech blog, therefore, might be a better source of useful information than a general article in a major newspaper.

Whereas professional journalists offer skills, bloggers can offer area-specific expertise. For coverage of an event, such as a catastrophic hurricane, I would first consult established media. For a highly specific topic or a hyper-local concern, blogs are my pick.

A YU Blog? Why Not!


Why do I sit at this desk pounding out yet another blog posting? Do I delude myself into believing that more than a very small group of people will ever read these words? Will my post incite millions to throng the streets tomorrow, triggering massive social upheaval?

The chances of any single blog enjoying that kind of influence are slim. Far more than other mediums, the Internet approaches democracy in its literal sense: It takes the combined force of many bloggers to wreak havoc on corporate corruption, scandal, and government malfeasance.

The power of bloggers united has matured into a formidable force in today’s political climate. As Dan Gillmor illustrates in his book We the Media, bloggers were partly responsible for ousting Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 2002. At first, major news outlets found the remarks innocuous. The story was buried deep into The Washington Post, and ABC News had barely mentioned it. It was the swarms of angry bloggers that forced the issue into the national scene (for further analysis, read a Harvard study).

Ironically, blogs can also serve the needs of the corporate elite. For the potential candidate and the corporate executive alike, maintaining a timely, open blog is an excellent way of engaging your targeted audiences and putting a human face on a product brand. You can read Blog Maverick, written by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Just be sure you don’t delegate blog writing.

A more difficult question to answer is whether blogs can be classified as communities. Sure, bloggers network to build active discussion groups on topics of relevance to them, from DVD players to Yoga dancers. Bloggers have even developed a system of typing etiquette, such as a disdain for capitalized lettering, which is the electronic equivalent of shouting. Yet if communities are defined in the strictly traditional sense, neighbors meeting at a county fair, then something is lacking in the blogsphere. Bloggers tend to form communities with those they already agree with, spurning exposure to diversity for an echo room. If diversity is considered to be a necessary component of a community, then most blogs are not communities.

Perhaps, if Richard Joel were to start his own blog, a la Mark Cuban, a YU blog-based community could possibly develop. In time, the blog would engage the diverse YU denizens in issues that affect us all, satisfying my diversity requirement. For all the talk of “building the community”, I’d imagine that this one’s a no-brainer. Check out the existing alumni blog on the YU site, it's pathetic! This "blog" merely lists off the recent headlines that have graced the front page of the website, no more.

President Joel, if you are reading this, could you please respond with a comment?

Life After Wikipedia

I can’t remember where I first heard it, but a particular childhood story came to mind when I read Chapters One and Two of Dan Gillmor’s We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People:

Once upon a time, a young king of some distant land desired to master all areas of knowledge. He proceeded to commission a team of learned scholars to prepare for him an authoritative book on every subject. Years past and the scholars weren’t even close to finishing the monumental project. The king then relented, asking for at least a compendium. When that wasn’t enough, the king knocked it down to a digest. Unfortunately, just when the scholars had completed chapter one, the king had past away.

Until recently, creating the penultimate repository for all knowledge was a librarian’s fantasy. No encyclopedia could hire enough experts to submit enough articles to cover all areas. At best, we had to allow the experts an incredible amount of power to triage knowledge for us.

Such undemocratic and ineffective methods of information collecting were symptomatic of the Dark Ages before Internet. Today, however, Wikipedia has revolutionized the way we gather knowledge and even the definition of truth itself. It’s a giant encyclopedia written and edited by thousands of average people. Over the summer, I read an absolutely fascinating article on the history and impact of Wikipedia in The Atlantic Monthly. Marshall Poe, the author, claims that truth has now become what most people, not the experts, say it is:

The power of the community to decide, of course, asks us to reexamine what we mean when we say that something is “true.” We tend to think of truth as something that resides in the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is written in the stars—we merely discovered it. But Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth. Just think about the way we learn what words mean. Generally speaking, we do so by listening to other people (our parents, first). Since we want to communicate with them (after all, they feed us), we use the words in the same way they do. Wikipedia says judgments of truth and falsehood work the same way. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it decides what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.

Wikipedia’s critics warn that the new technology will wrought absolute destruction on authoritative knowledge. Poe, I believe, would counter that Wikipedia has instead entrusted the knowledge of mankind to mankind itself. What belongs to us should be returned to us.

Lapdogs or Watchdogs?


Eric Boehlert's new book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush makes a few bold assertions.

1. The national press failed miserably in its role as the public advocate to question President Bush's motives to wage war in Iraq.
2. Press coverage of the Bush Administration, at least until Katrina, was far more positive and supportive than of the former Clinton Administration.
3. Moreover, the press marginalized Cindy Sheehan's peace movement, favoring the Christian Right's Terry Schiavo crusade instead.

These events are neither incidental nor coincidental, Boehlert would claim. In the past thirty years, the conservative donors, think tanks, media watchdog groups, and press have quietly consolidated and streamlined a powerful right-wing media cartel, penetrating national political discourse as never before. Their favorites (Bush) get kid-glove treatment, their enemies (Clinton) get boxing-glove treatment.

Boehlert is probably right, though without reading his book, I'd need a few points clarified. First, he notes how Whitewater and the various sex scandals persistently followed Clinton throughout his presidency, but Bush's drinking and coke-sniffing escapades were quickly disregarded. True, but Clinton’s scandals were ongoing, while Bush is coke-free for almost thirty years. How is that relevant anymore?

Also, “conservative media cartel” probably isn't the only storyline here: Aren’t we forgetting 9/11? That fateful day had a chilling effect on an otherwise feisty media. Supporting the president became popular again, especially during a military campaign in Afghanistan.

When the dust settles, even a cursory overview of recent political history would finally debunk the myth that the media swings to the left.

Give me Liberty...

Today’s topic, “Freedom of Speech during War Time”, is one of the great Constitutional debates of our history. Inevitably, most people will assert that free speech is sacrosanct barring a serious emergency. At issue are the two distinct and, at times, contradictory roles of the Executive: The prime law enforcer and the vanguard of national security. What if defending our country requires abrogation of the law? Who’s to say one of the Executive’s Constitutional duties takes precedence? (For a fuller discussion, watch a 2005 debate on the topic at Harvard Law School.)

Perhaps the roles of the President are not as distinct as we had suggested. Granted, the Constitution allows the Executive significant latitude to protect the nation. Yet how can we be sure that the power is being used responsibly? Is he/she tapping our phone conversations or jailing Americans without a trial behind our backs? That’s why even national security needs to be governed by law: to provide Congressional oversight and public accountability. FISA, FOIA, and other legislation were created for this very purpose.

Our beloved former President, Richard M. Nixon, brought these issues into sharper focus when The New York Times leaked the ultra-classified “Pentagon Papers”, detailing much of the blatant lies propagated by successive administrations about Vietnam. As punishment, Nixon ordered his staff to decline interviews from all Times reporters: “Under absolutely no circumstances is anyone on the White House staff on any subject to respond to an inquiry from The New York Times unless and until I give express permission (and I do not intend to give such permission in the foreseeable future).” The decision was taken “because of national interest” and “is not subject to appeal or further discussion unless I bring it up myself (Marilyn B. Young, The Vietnam Wars 1945 – 1990).”

To this inexhaustible debate I offer but one contribution: Those who advocate unbridled executive power must consider the lessons of the past. Freedom of Speech made the First Amendment for a reason: It’s the first line of defense protecting our other liberties. When liberty is discarded, we may never regain it.

CNN? Nah, I watch Al Jazeera

At 12:00 AM tomorrow, Al Jazeera will launch its much-anticipated international news station in English, Al Jazeera International (AJI) which is expected to reach an unprecedented 30 to 40 million homes immediately. Their intentions are evident: to challenge the BBC-CNN monopoly on world news coverage and invite stratification of opinion in political discourse. Wadah Khanfar, the director-general of Al Jazeera network, confidently touts the English station as proof of Al Jazeera’s burgeoning strength:

This is unprecedented in the broadcasting industry - no other international news channel has launched with such a high number of homes across the world. We will continue to build on this figure after launch and will be looking to expand our reach significantly. This is another reflection of the strength of Al Jazeera brand.

What will Al Jazeera’s surging prominence mean for U.S. Foreign Policy? Will they undermine our fight against Islamic terrorism with aggressive propaganda, or will they instead pander to a new English-speaking audience by shifting its notorious media bias? I predict that the new market forces accompanying the expansion will necessarily encourage more journalistic professionalism, objectivity, and candor than ever.

While videotapes of Osama bin Laden are featured regularly on Al Jazeera’s Arabic station, the network is decidedly independent-minded (read Hugh Miles's article in Foreign Policy). Bankrolled by the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera has assumed a neutral, dispassionate position in the terror debate. Blood-thirsty terrorists as well as open critics of Islamic extremism receive air-time on Al Jazeera (watch a virulently Anti-Islamic clip appearing on AJ television this year). The network provides the forum for all political discourse, no matter how extreme.

Despite its popularity in the Arab world (and Israel), Al Jazeera has consistently lost money due to its failure to garner Western advertising. A balanced international network recruiting respected journalists, minus the Osama tapes, may be just the gamble Al Jazeera needs to finally turn a profit. After all, the Emir’s treasury is not inexhaustible. Professionalism will be accentuated, extremism curtailed.

The "Big Lie"

Unfortunately, the one topic that Jews of all backgrounds can discuss together is the Holocaust. In any exploration of the development of the Nazi Party, the effective use of propaganda figures prominently. Though government propaganda was commonly used in both authoritarian and democratic regimes alike, the Nazis had elevated the craft to new, frightening heights. They not only perfected existing propaganda methods, they also devised wholly new means of persuasion.

One example is the use of the “Big Lie”. Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf that Germany’s loss in World War One was actually a big lie propagated by Winston Churchill with the help of the Jewish owned press. If it was indeed a colossal lie, asked Hitler, how were the German people so badly duped? He explains that sometimes a huge lie is more believable than a small white lie. People reasoned that the press would never willfully destroy its reputation by printing such an overt lie, so it must be true. Ironically, Hitler employs the very same tactic by instead blaming the war on the greedy Jews.

When you think about it, Hitler was on to something. The New York Times has a greater capacity to fabricate lies than, say, the New York Post, because they assume airs of credibility. Our most trusted news sources and government officials could also be the most egregious liars (think Bush and the Iraq-9/11 connection).

A Word About Wal-Mart


As we explained in a previous blog, the very notion of propaganda implies deceptive manipulation. The art of political persuasion, forged over the centuries, predictably contains three salient features: Rhetoric, symbols, and myths. Politicians continue to use them precisely because they are so effective at stimulating an emotional response and mitigating the need for empirical proof, the ultimate means of propaganda.

Rhetorical tactics such as powerful speaking skills and a careful choice of language serve to delight us and brand us with a memorable image. Who can forget the passionate soliloquy, the closing arguments in the Scopes Trial, or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address? These memories live on in the collective consciousness of mankind, their evocative power still formidable long after the events. Through effective speaking, one can make a factually weak argument appear sound. The better the speaker, the more he/she can get away with.

A myth, in its strictly scientific definition, refers to the cherished stories and values of a group, whether true or not. Compared to our current surroundings, the myths tend to be comforting, warm, and pristine. Ronald Reagan was a pro at weaving in classic American imagery into his vision for the future (Watch some of Reagan’s ads from the 1984 election and you’ll see what I'm getting at).

A symbol is a speech or event distilled down to a single word or phrase. They evoke the intended emotional response immediately, though they should be used sparingly. Just mention the word “Munich” or “Vietnam” as an apt comparison to the Iraq War, and the message is clear.

One example of rhetoric, symbol and myth in propaganda is the opposition to Wal-Mart. The long-beleaguered labor unions have cast Wal-Mart is the new face of greedy corporatism. Finding or creating an arch villain is a popular rhetorical device, for people have a greater capacity for hate then for affection. The symbol of Wal-Mart’s disregard for local distinctiveness has become the Aztec pyramid of Theotihuacan, a Mexican source of pride being eclipsed by a giant Wal-Mart. Finally, any good critique of Wal-Mart will invoke a popular myth that Wal-Mart has eradicated the Main Street commercial centers of America. They will wax nostalgia about the Mom & Pop stores and the vibrancy of civic activity that was lost forever.

Onus on Mr. Bush

Fascinating clip. A sharp departure from the bland diet of political meekness we've gotten used to from mainstream media. Hat tip to "Uncle Cool".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

What does the C-Doc think of this?

Propaganda and Education

The topic of this blog posting is the pervasiveness of propaganda in contemporary America. Generally speaking, people exhibit a harsh reaction to the use of propaganda, for any purpose. Many would suggest that the dramatic rise in cynicism and the declining levels of political participation in this country can be partly attributed to an overall disgust with the government’s use of communication tactics saturated with propaganda.

In order to explain the phenomenon of propaganda, we must first define it. As usual, delineating the contours of propaganda, what circumstances fall within the penumbra of propaganda, is subject to heated debate among social scientists. Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, in his 2004 book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons if Mass Seduction, does a nice job in his first chapter of identifying, at least, the elements necessary to generate propaganda. First, propaganda implies deception, either in the core message or in the way the message is presented. Multiple viewpoints or a complex treatment of issues are likewise unthinkable in a message of propaganda. Second, propaganda requires intention on the part of the purveyor as well as the intended response of the recipient. Is unintentional propaganda theoretically coherent? If the audience fails to recognize the underlying message of a piece of propaganda, is it still propaganda? O’Shaughnessy would answer negatively to both.

Persuasion through some form of deception or oversimplification is, to a significant degree, the foundation of our education system. Our teachers tell us that democracy is correct, our parents tell us that sugary cereals rot your teeth, and our religious leaders tell us that God rewards the righteous. Is this education, or indoctrination? I’m not suggesting that any of these traditional orthodoxies are untrue. Rather, I am suggesting that the manner in which we learn information as a child is a form of propaganda. Only a student of great intellectual integrity can hope to shuck off his/her educational baggage to investigate the truth, often in spite of external pressure to accept the status quo.

Rate Your President!

Arguably, presidential approval ratings are the most well-known poll in America. Initiated by George Gallop in 1936, the presidential poll is seen as a thermometer for gauging the zeitgeist of American politics. Practically every polling agency weekly conducts such a poll, a summary of which can be found on Polling Records. Perhaps also, the approval rating best exemplifies an inherent weakness in mass polling. Can a thoughtful, engaged citizen reasonably answer the question “In general, is the president doing a good job?” with a yes or no? Political dialogue should not resemble a game of “Twenty Questions”; serious topics usually cannot be reduced to a one-word answer.

Presidential approval polls are taken far more often than the average American may realize. Characterized as a “voracious consumer of polls” by NYT writer Josh Green, Karl Rove takes presidential polls for his own private consumption constantly. For Rove, public opinion is not his interest. By carefully rephrasing upcoming policy agendas in the form of poll questions, Rove can devise the president’s latest spin. Through polls, Rove had discovered that “Stay the Course”, as a slogan, was a huge drag on Bush’s popularity. Overnight, Bush had deleted it from his vocabulary (see the hilarious video).

How does Mass Media use presidential approval ratings, aside from covering them as if they were actually news (such as recent NBC interview)? Perhaps newspapers with a generally critical opinion of the president will use his sagging approval ratings in a way that will harm his party in the upcoming elections. By including presidential approval ratings in the same article covering a House or Senate race, readers will make the unconscious connection between all Republicans and an incompetent President. In a brief study, I found a few articles that could support this theory: One from Denver, one from the NYT, and one in the New York Times Magazine. More research should be dedicated to this important question.