Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Are Blogs the "real story"?
Our first chapter and class discussion reviewed the process of communication. There are many variables that intertwine to form an effective message. Communication is more than just a presenter! One variable that is often understudied is the channel Many times we combine or lose its importance when we equate it with the content. Becoming effective speakers means we need to address the needs of our audience in their reception of the message too. Understanding not just the message that needs to be addressed but the means used to share it to achieve effectiveness is an important decision too, as evident in our text's discussion of the many channels available in a business environment. We may have the luxury of many options in a business setting in sending a message but which one is really the most effective when it comes to time and money and clarity? Becoming effective presenters means adapting our message to our audience with all the variables too, including our choice of the channels. To follow up our discussion, let's explore how we make our decisions in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. A new and fascinating channel that we are seeing in this election is web 2.0 and blogging. Check out this YouTube clip for a basic understanding of how utilizing this channel is creating new meanings for us. The assignment this week is to explore how technology shapes the messages that you form and adhere to in this election. Check out these links. The first is a recent article on Monday, August, 25, 2008 Asbury Park Press, entitled, Bloggers alter the equations for coverage". the second link is an article and clip from the NBC Nightly News entitled "Blogs grow in numbers, power and influence"Then, check out a blog (find something that is nonpartisan, if you can) on the recent democratic conference or campaign or the current republican conference/campaign at Fox news and ABCNews or you will find more links to blogs in these articles. Do blogs give us the real story? Are the televised conferences and reports read in the newspapers and magazines giving you balance information? When a candidate speaks what channel(s) are they using to adapt to their audience? Share in this blog your thoughts after exploring these sites. What are your thoughts about blogs and web 2.0? Please include in your post comments the following details whether you found new or different information on the candidate and issues. Do blogs open up a new channel to create a different or new perspective on the campaign for you? And, the link to the blog post that you are using as the source of your opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Melissa Koerner
Blogging
In this year’s election campaign, blogs have brought a new dimension to media coverage for the public. According to the article, “Bloggers alter the equations for coverage”, both the Democrats and Republicans gave passes to nearly 200 bloggers and web-based reporters to their national conventions. This is quite an increase from the previous election year. The public can now have a whole new outlook about what is really going on at the convention besides what is shown on TV or written about in the newspapers.
Televised conferences and newspaper and magazine reports do give balanced information but they are limited in time and space. The full story is not always given due to this fact and there are also filters that the articles go through before being published. In this sense blogs give the public more of the real story but however, because these stories are not filtered before being placed on the web it is unclear how accurate the story is.
The political blog that I looked at seemed to be a nonpartisan blog, focusing on New Jersey. They had several blogs from each day that covered both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. I didn’t so much find new information on the candidates or issues however I did find out different things that happened at the convention that I did not know about. Although some of the stories were little in the big scheme of things happening at the convention I did get a better feel for what was going on and created a new perspective on the campaign.
During this year’s election, candidates are expanding the channels they use to reach out to people. Not only are they using face-to-face communication as a channel but they are also taking full advantage of the Internet, such as blogs, candidate websites, web-videos, and e-mail.
Politckernj.com .
After reading through some different blogs, I came to realize how greatly these ‘news reports’ differ from those of TV, Magazine and newspaper reports. I’m not quite sure that blogs always give us the ‘real’ story. They do, however, give real opinions and an in depth look on how people view certain governmental and political issues. I think that many bloggers provide the reader with the true, ‘nitty gritty’ information. We hear the details of this presidential election from the point of view of a ‘normal’ person rather than a scripted reporter or a journalist who has an assigned task to complete with their article. Sometimes bloggers seem to be a bit one-sided, and we don’t get a chance to hear the positives and negatives of both sides. In newspapers, magazines and TV reports, I find that the reporting on politics is more neutral, and if not neutral then more balanced. We are able to hear the positives and negatives about both Obama and McCain. I think these channels try to appeal to both sides, in order to not alienate a particular audience. Bloggers don’t seem to really care about alienating an audience, they just report what they want, when they want, and give us information we may not hear through other types of media. I don’t think news reports go as in depth with certain aspects of a story as blogs do.
In “bloggers alter the equations for coverage” the reporter mentions, “Blogging now can be added to round-the-clock reporting.” I think this is the best part of blogging. Rather than watching or reading a news report at a certain time, we can log online at anytime and see what people are thinking, and what news is being revealed about the candidates. We get to hear the most recent information, whenever we want and wherever we are. We get to hear an unscripted, real life opinion of a blogger, which I believe can really shape our perspectives on certain candidates. We even get to hear new information that may not have been talked about or written about on TV and in print media.
When reading through blogs, I found one in particular that interested me. Though it is not ‘non partisan’ it sums up, for me, what blogs convey. This particular blog is called ‘McCain Refuses to Leave Bush Administration’s Education Failures behind.’ It discussed how though McCain was in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act, he is not really pushing for any great changes in education. The blog highlighted the fact that “instead, he chose to vilify educators and praise school voucher schemes.” After watching McCain’s speech at the RNC, I did not even know he was for the No Child Left Behind Act, in fact I did not really know much at all about his dealings with education. This blog really keyed me in to the main issues and problems with his views on education. Without hearing this ‘real, unfiltered report’ of this issue, I would have never been able to form an accurate opinion with the knowledge I have acquired about the issue from TV and in Newspapers alone. Blogs in general give a whole new perspective on the campaign for me. I read about issues in a way that is not presented in Newspapers and on TV.
Nowadays candidates not only reach people through TV and Print, but also through Youtube and other web sources. Through the web, we can form all of our opinions about our presidential candidates. We can get to know them and their political views through Youtube and online sources, and we can read about their issues and how people feel about them through blogs. Web 2.0 is changing the ways of a presidential race. We can feel more connected to a candidate and form our opinions through the many different channels and sources that are out there for us. Personally I think Web 2.0 is a great way to learn about this presidential race. I do, however, think that blogging is a complimentary source to TV and newspapers. I think all the channels work together well, because we are able to hear and see how different sources rely the information to their audiences.
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/09/08/mccain-refuses-to-leave-bush-administrations-education-failures-behind/#more-7033
Moe Hindi
Blogs
A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web; you can log online at anytime and see what people are thinking, and what news is being revealed about any subject. We get to hear the most recent information, whenever we want and wherever we are. I believe that a blog can give its readers the real story, but it depends on what the reader believes is the real story. According to NBC news correspondent Dawn Fratangelo, he states that blogs are “the new age opinion page” (Fratangelo 1). Blogging can be compared to other channels like newspapers and magazines, because you are still being fed information and news, but it is rare that you obtain the full true story about a situation.
It is up to the audience to use all the sources available, whether it is blogs or newspapers to help achieve a balanced gathering of information. The televised conferences and reports read in the newspapers and magazines give you somewhat of balanced information, if all sides of the story are being held properly. When candidates speak they are expanding the channels they use to reach out to people. They are using all types of channels live communication, the Internet, such as blogs, candidate websites, web-videos, and e-mail. The candidates are using all platforms to try and make their message be heard.
Subsequently, I strongly believe that blogs do open up a new channel that helps create a different and new perspective on the campaign. The voice of the everyman is growing louder and being heard everywhere through blogging and that indeed helps add new perspectives. The political blog that I read was from the Washington post titled “Playing Politics -With Oprah?”, and I thought that it was interesting because it something new that I have never heard before. Politics were actually fighting over television talk show host Oprah Winfrey. I clearly understand now because her platform reaches the homes of millions of viewers. It is a channel that can help reach more voters, and politicians are looking to capitalize off of it. I think Web 2.0 is a great way to learn about this presidential race and other topics. With Blogging, I think all the channels work together well.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/
There is no doubt that blogs have had a profound effect on how news is reported in recent years. By all counts, it seem as though blogs will have the largest effect it has ever had on this year's presidential election. On the surface, it gives a venue for even the smallest person to broadcast their opinion on current events.
It is my opinion that blogs for the most part are unbalanced, factually skeptical, and must be taken with a grain of salt. The video Professor McManiman has a section that highlights the reason why I believe this. Anyone can reach the internet and post whatever they like, regardless of what the facts may be. An Obama supporter can pose as an McCain campaign supporter (and vica-versa) and supply McCain followers with imaginary information, just to cause strife.
Whenever I watch the news or read a blog and new or different information is presented, I research the subject myself and obtain my own opinion about the topic. I've never read a blog, watched a news service, or read a newspaper that has supplied me information that has always been 100% factual (on a continual basis) after I've looked further into the topics. I've noticed that most of the facts in blogs are written in the first or second paragraph, followed by another number of opinion paragraphs. I have learned different things and changed my views from blogs, but not after much skepticism and research on the topic. I respect that fact that blogs allow people to express their opinions, just as this blog is doing, but I don't look at them as a reliable source of information.
As for this campaign, blogs have not done anything for me. Most bloggers are nit-pickers of useless issues and seemingly large issues when the facts are exaggerated. An example of this is reported in this blog. "Gov. Palin: Fact and Fiction" http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/. This blogger reports on the over exaggeration of things that are being brought up from Sarah Palin's past.
In theory, blogs are fantastic a channel to spread news. But when you include the human element of trying to spread their own agenda, this is my problem with blogs.
In my opinion, blogs should be used for nothing more than a source of entertaining commentary, not factual news reporting. People go on and on about how liberal they feel the media tends to stray (CNN, NBC, etc.) or how conservatively other channels such as Fox News tend to report. With blogs, all gloves are off. Any regular Joe Schmo can sign up on Google, type in his password, and start typing their two cents in. Using a blog to gain a factual insight into the news is worse than watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for the same purpose. At least with the Daily Show, Jon Steward never once makes the claim that his show has any sense of real journalistic integrity. Blogs, on the other hand, have no limits and not all of them have the same restraint. While it IS a great channel for the regular American to sign on and voice his/her own opinions on issues which can directly affect them, there is a fine line between proclaimed subjectivity and false objectivity. In order for a blog to be truly effective, that line MUST be established first and foremost so noone absorbs the written information under false pretenses.
One can never trust the media, no matter how infamous the resource is or how reliable people think it is. Every person must always do their research and investigate what they read. No one thinks exactly the same as the other. Newspapers may display facts, but certain words or ways of phrasing things can turn facts into opinions. The fact of the matter is that the media is manipulated. It can sway us in any way it pleases. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch. He manipulates a large part of the media world; Murdoch owns media business that stretch from Fox News to papers in the United Kingdom. Being that he owns such a large part of the media puts into question the businesses under his wing. His relationships, political affiliation, and actions must be put into consideration. If there is some sort of idea he wishes to enforce he can easily enforce it. That is why research is crucial when the media is your prime source of information. Honestly I doubt that many magazines or newspapers give us balanced information. The crazy part about is that this imbalanced source of information is what people usually depend on. Blogs on the other hand, provide information from different people. A farmer, urban resident, or suburban resident is able to expose their opinions on these blogs. That way everyone who reads this blog can be open minded if they want and hear other sides. The blogs are also very useful because no one can tell you what to write and what not to write. There are no boundaries in the world of blogging; just raw thoughts and opinions. Blogs definitely open up a new channel for the campaign. There is a vast amount of information and opinions to pick apart and put to use. The blog I took a look at was based on arrests at the Republican National Convention. It’s great how you can put any idea or opinion for others to read.
http://www.nysun.com/blogs/latest-politics/2008/09/fbi-police-molotovs-kidnap-talk-part-of.html#continued
Televised reports and articles from newspapers and magazines do provide the public with a great deal of information. However, certain TV stations, as well as newspapers and magazines, will limit what they say in attempts to not offend anyone that would result in a problem for them to deal with. Furthermore, whether intentional or not, they do tend to cover stories in a way that does sway or portray a position in a better or worse light, depending which better suits that station or paper. On the other hand, blogs are written a lot more freely as anyone can really begin a blog and post their feelings on an issue. As a result, a whole new perspective is being seen and has made its way to mainstream media outlets. Blogs are now being referred to by major news programs and looked at as a source of opinion and information. For example, the article from the Asbury Park Press, “Bloggers alter the equation for coverage,” states how at this year’s Democratic National Convention 200 bloggers and web-based reporters were granted access to the convention, as opposed to only 30 during the 2004 DNC.
Candidates now need to take into consideration that the public will no longer only see what the major new stations decide to air and cover, but now the perspective of those a part of the blogging world will also be readily available. I think that blogs are a great new source of insight in terms of current events and issues. It is not limited by those higher up in corporations and such who may filter some of the content before it gets aired, or in this case, posted. While perhaps not always a reliable source of facts, depending which sources you look at, it will likely provide a new, even less biased view to the campaigns and/or candidates.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/both-sides-try-shaping-issue-of-experience-2008-09-03.html
It is imperative to recognize that there’s a somewhat naive assumption that everyone who blogs is genuine, and everything is built around "credibility". Blogging is merely an opinion that one promotes through the internet and is often bias and fallacious. That is not to say that newspapers and television are exclusively factual. For example, The New York Times tends to be a liberal based paper and often promotes liberalism. Fox News however tends to be more conservative, and leans toward the right wing. On the other hand, a vast majority of journalists do check their facts as well as guarantee corroborate information. Therefore, television and newspapers do provide balance information over blogs. Bloggers seem to quickly and aggressively attack. However, there are bloggers who try to avoid unsubstantiated reports and solely present facts and direct sources; while, those bloggers are often marginal. Greenberg stated “that while there most likely will be changes in how conventions are conducted and covered, blogs' influence and use of the Internet will not likely match the "transformative" impact of television — where politicians eliminated the long floor demonstrations and old-boys-club environment in favor of today's more scripted atmosphere”. In my opinion, blogs are not a legitimate source of media.
I have provided a link below discussing blogs and how they can be inaccurate.
http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/
I feel that blogs give people a voice that wouldn't be heard otherwise. In the Daily Record (my local newspaper) when they post articles online people are allowed to post their opinions. I realized this when my friend's sister died and all of a sudden people from other towns were posting their non-flattering opinions on her without knowing the first thing about her or the story in depth and I know for a fact that their voices were heard because I was reading them. Public blogging on political websites does possess power to a point. It does have the power to motivate voters after reading what a fellow voter has to say on an issue. Journalistic blogging has the same power but on a larger scale since people are more likely to receive information from a professional source. For this reason and that of posting videos, web 2.0 is highly effective for political websites in how it opens video and blogging channels to the public. Web 2.0 not only allows videos to be posted, but allows anyone to comment on those videos. When I was searching for political blogs I came across one written by Michael Falcone that said how Ron Paul is urging supporters to vote for a third party candidate. To answer the question as to whether or not to trust blogs it all boils back down to good old fashioned personal guessing and knowing your source. I don't know who Michael Falcone is or if he's telling the truth. He's posted on a reputable website so does that make him reputable? I wouldn't assume so.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
Each year, blogs become more and more important to the media and the issues in it, whether political or otherwise. Obviously, in this election alone, bloggers have already made a profound impact, commenting on things before they even make it to the pages of the newspapers or the screens of our televisions. As the article “Blogs Grow in Numbers, Power and Influence” mentions, the news media oftentimes gets much of its information from blog sources. I do not, however, believe that blogs give us the “real story”. Quite frankly, I do not think that any media outlet, print, TV or otherwise, gives us the “real” story. I think that blogs give us an unedited version of certain things, so that could be considered more “real”, but blogs can also be extremely biased…more biased, in fact, than even the most liberal or conservative newspaper or TV station. This is because a large part of blogging is inputting one’s own opinion. Many blogs are like online journals, where people can say exactly what is on their minds. It is nearly impossible to find balanced information anywhere these days, and blogs are no exception.
In this presidential race, even candidates are using blogs. The internet is only one of the many channels they use to connect with their audience. On many candidates’ websites, you can watch their latest speeches or stream the latest interview with them. Along with televised speeches and press releases, guest write-ups in magazines, campaign newsletters and emails, blogs are making candidates today more easily accessible to their audience than ever before.
I think blogs are a fantastic new media outlet. Web 2.0 is changing the way people find information, put out information and even how they work in general. It is changing the way we think. It is an exciting time to go into the field of communications and media. For me, Web 2.0 is a wonderful new invention. It is a phenomenon that is helping to put the world closer to our fingertips than ever before. In this presidential campaign, I think blogging has, in fact, created a fresh, new perspective on things. The issues at hand for either candidate are more widely discussed and more personally felt thanks to bloggers everywhere. People are not only putting their political opinions out there for all to see, but they are also providing certain information that the big news corporations may not be aware of yet. Not only can the “average joe” go online and inform him/herself, but reporters everywhere can log-on and find new topics to discuss in other outlets such as television and print media.
In the LA Times blog that I looked at, I read about something that had never occurred to me before and that I have not heard anyone else report anywhere: the possibility of Republican Vice Presidential candidate “overshadowing” Presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain. This blogger points out that because of Gov. Sarah Palin’s popularity, people may overlook the main candidate (as well as his policies, etc.) and simply want to see more of Palin. This new “Palin-McCain ticket” will be the one to get closer to the White House than the “McCain-Palin” one ever was going to. The problem? Will an audience even bother paying attention to Sen. McCain with such a dynamic “# 2” at his side?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-mcc.html
It is a well known fact that blogs, vlogs (video blogs), and podcasts are slowly but surely having a major impact on the presidential election. However, bloggers are not a valid source of information and should not be the basis of anyone's selection for the presidency. Many blogs attempt to remain unbiased and factual; however, it is easy for anyone to sit in front of a computer screen say what they think about the campaigns without feeling credible for their writing. It is for this reason that I feel newspapers, magazine, and televised news reports give balance to the information at hand. Even though these media sources can lean more to the left or to the right, they still are held accountable for what they say and therefore tend to be more factual than blogs.
In the blog I found, the blogger (A.B. Stoddard) gives both sides of the issue but tends to lean more to the liberal side - taking a few jabs at Palin towards the end of the blog. This is a prime example of why blogging is never 100% unbiased, everyone has an opinion and a side and unless you are being held credible for your work, some of your personality and opinions always slip through into your writing. However, I do enjoy seeing people's personal opinions and thoughts on the election; it makes me feel more in touch with the rest of the voters to know that other people share my sentiments.
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/09/09/on-bridge-boondoggle-palin-having-it-both-ways/#more-3536
Blogs began to emerge about 15 to 20 years ago, but did not gain the popularity they now have until about 10 years ago. Over this 20 year time period blogs have been used by many people for many reasons including entertainment, humor, and criticism. Now, especially as the political climate is changing, bloggers are becoming more and more influential. As quoted by Dawn Fratangelo in her article, "Blogs grow in numbers, power and influence", “What started as lonely voices from laptops are a growing influence in the mainstream media.” Because of this increasing influence, the climate of political campaigns and elections is rapidly changing and adapting to the new technologies that are developing and gaining prestige. The question then arises however, Do blogs give us the real story? Well, that also brings us, perhaps, to an even more intriguing question. Do the traditional media methods (newspapers and television) give us the real story, or do they give to us a biased perspective? Based on the television coverage of the recent election, and the news stories on the recent election, it is quite obvious that there is a disparity (depending on the television network or the newspaper company) between whether or not the information given is balanced and just. Different networks and newspapers may give biased information for any number of reasons, thus making it difficult to determine the exact reason for this disparity. Although the factual parts of the information may be true, some television networks and newspapers present their information in such a way that it is most definitely unbalanced. Take for instance Fox News. This news station most definitely gives a conservative slant to their news stories and especially to coverage of elections and campaigns. This now brings us back to the question of whether or not blogs give us the real story. Because, “Blogging and Internet reporting provide different formats than traditional media, with no space limitations and little to no filter”, it is safe to assume that blogs, like television and newspapers, may or may not give more truth to stories and news coverage than the traditional news media outlets (Michael Rispoli, Bloggers alter the equation for coverage). After reading some of the non-partisan bloggings of http://donklephant.com/, it has become clear that blogs and web 2.0 have indeed become new channels in which people can communicate their ideas and views. These views, although not proven fact, most definitely have more of a raw and uncut air about them than television and newspaper coverage of political events. Part of the reason for this could be that the bloggers, essentially, have nothing to lose. They do not reach the amount of people that newspapers and television do, and therefore do not face the risk of severe criticism from candidates and important news media people. Because of this freedom, the bloggings seem more realistic, perhaps causing people to trust in them more. As for myself, I have never read a blog, or participated in one. They do not appeal to me as much television and newspapers. This is partly because blogging is such a new channel of news media that I feel as though at times it may not be as trustworthy as newspaper and television. I also find blogs not to be as trustworthy because I know for a fact that almost everything that comes through newspapers and television networks is at least in part created by an educated professional who has had a lot of special training. So, I have finally come to the conclusion that people should use old forms of news media as a basis for their information, but it wouldn’t hurt much to use blogs only as an additional and fresh view on important issues.
Blogging is an exciting, fast, and relatively new way to get information. Blogs are just that, information. To take blogs as a serious news source takes lots of fact searching and in my opinion is more of a hassle than it is worth. Blogs can be an entertaining, and informative way of presenting an opinion. The great thing about blogs is that pretty much anyone from anywhere can have their voice heard. The internet is a secure way of putting out ones opinion without having to worry about ramifications. The dangerous thing with Blogs is that many people cannot differentiate opinion from fact. Or even facts that are purposely picked to lead a reader to a particular conclusion. It took me quite a while to find a blog that was as impartial as possible, but is it possible to be impartial? Not quite, just like news sources, the only real way to get a handle on any situation is by reading as many blogs (with difference in opinions) so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions.
I also find it slightly disturbing that most blogs are created by a technologically savvy crowd. To think that we are getting a full range of opinions is foolish. Many times these blogs are just the preaching to the choir. This could be a reason why there are way more Pro-Obama blogs than Pro-McCain blogs. This comes despite the fact that the race is almost dead even according to recent polls. Blogs are great, but readers must be wary.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/
The 2008 presidential election faces many new challenges and opportunities due to the advancement in technology. There are definitely many options existing for communicating. Based on Watching Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and reading blogs from both the Asbury Park Press, and viewing various videos on ABC, there are many differences that effect both the value and trust in the information provided. Is there a most effective channel? No, I do not believe there is. Time wise, the general public will be drawn to the message delivery system providing time efficiency. Money wise today most owns at least one television set, has some access to newspapers, either in print or in an electronic format. The matter of being computer savvy and having the option and understanding on how to use the Internet, is certainly growing. The, all things considered, clarity of the message is definitely an issue. Those lucky enough to have access to all technological applications of media available, stand the best chance to have the most complete and accurate information to assist them in evaluating and selecting their best presidential candidates. Technology reshapes the messages that one may hear, see and read, because today, it allows for no one to have the last word when stating an opinion. Print media tends to be flat in the sense that once it is printed and in our hands, there is no way to respond at that point in time. Today news becomes “yesterdays’ news” almost immediately after it is read.
The Republican’s Vice Presidential hopeful, Sarah Palin, according to ABC’s blog and George Stepanopoulos, reaches out to woman under the age of 50. The younger the target the more the person would be in tune with technology and blogging. It make sense then for campaign leaders to use blogging and post information to those who blog to accomplish reaching this demographic. According to Stepanopoloulos, ratings for McCain since Palin’s announcement narrowed and reversed the gap between Obama and McCain from 50% and 42% to a more narrow percentage of 8% or 41% to 53% in favor of McCain.
According to the Asbury Park Press blogg, “Bloggers are becoming more ingrained in the political culture, even breaking some of the bigger stories during this year's presidential primaries. It was the left-leaning blog Web site The Huffington Post that first reported on the "bitter" remarks made about small-town Americans by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
NBC’s blog on NJ Nightly News reports having news available around the clock provides instant reporting venues like blogs and Web video, and politicians will need to be more aware of all the information floating out in virtual space. Now, political conventions more than ever before, have seats reserved for bloggers. It was also stated that blog-powered coverage offer a more varied look at the facts that neither have improved or detracted from media used in the past.
The messages I am reading in newspapers and magazines are not as balanced compared to adding the information available on television and on the Internet. During Palin’s acceptance speech, I paid particular notice of the channels she used. She appears very confident and spoke clearly. She stood tall and engaged her constituency. Naturally, candidate’s speeches are written by someone else, but she appeared to pull it off quite well. The hot buttons for Palin appear to be when she is questioned about her experience overall and as Governor of Alaska and compares it to Obama stating his community experience. She becomes defensive and her eyes widen. Her fists are clenched and hammered into the air. She points her finger most times when stressing a point and not a preferred form of communication used for emphasizing a point. After all, she is not reprimanding her children, but rather speaking to individuals to sway in her favor making first and lasting impressions.
In my opinion blogs have a good place in the media. Blogs allow people to have more freedom of speech 24/7 than do other forms of media. I did find new information on Palin that disturbed me. By watching a video on a utube blog, I learned she did not support placing Polar Bears on the endangered species list. I am, as are many others, an animal advocate. Her team of “close woman friends” mentioned she killed and skinned a Moose. Good for her! (I guess it’s good if you live in Alaska, are a female trying to make a point and have 5 children that depend on you to provide sustenance.) But frankly, where’s the meat? As far as her issues, I didn’t find anything dramatically new. Finally, blogs do open a new channel to expand my perspective on this falls campaign.
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/POLITICS/808250355/1001/newsfront
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634554/Blogs%20grow%20in%20numbers,%20power%20and%20influenc
Throughout the years blogging has become more and more powerful. The elections and the presidential campaigns put bloggers right to work. Every day you can see that many people blog their point of view on the presidential candidates and what strategies they think they are taking to win this election.
By having people such as professional columnist blogging their opinion, the web has made a movement in progress or the evolution of the web. Besides this, the access of blogging is around the clock and you can find the opinion, of many other people, professional or not. You can find blogs on the political campaign or even on that speech that you missed. Many people see blogging as a place to vent but this can also be used to talk and opinionate on today’s current events. Blog entries are real and at this point people might even depend on the democratic and republican bloggers to determine who they might vote for.
I believe that blogging and other sources such as news, magazines and newspapers all go hand in hand and help people see different opinions on the same topic. Blogging is used by today’s Americans since blogging is basically an opinion, the reader can pick and choose what is useful for him or her. The bloggers opinion matters and has grown in to a source in which many depend on.
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/POLITICS/808250355/1001/newsfront
Blogs are changing the way that elections are being run. The average Joe can now have an opinion that is read by thousands of people across the nation. Blogs are a great way to view other people’s opinions, but that is what people need to keep in mind; blogs can be anybody. Most of the blogs that I read had to do with issues that have been stretched or gossip that has been passed along. Since anybody is able to post on blogs, it is important to keep in mind that the poster is not always credible.
However, blogs can also be a great new channel to use in the political campaign. Blogs have allowed me to see opinions that I would not be able to hear on television or read from a journalist’s column. Much of what is said through the mainstream media is scripted and influenced strongly by the beliefs of the owner of the corporation. Online people are unscripted and can add details that would never be known to be before. I feel that sometimes the details that are analyzed by bloggers seem to be even bigger than the issues brought up by reports during the news. Instead of turning to the New York Times, people are going online to read the blogs. Presidential candidates are now even starting to create Facebook profiles and Myspace accounts to reach a younger audience. Blogs are grabbing the attention of even people with the greatest influence. What grabbed my attention was when I read that a member from the Whitehouse was bothered by a comment that was said about George W. Bush on a blog online. The person from the Whitehouse strongly defended the current president on what was an innocent opinion page for people to post their beliefs. More eyes are reaching the blogs than I imagined.
If blogs continue to connect more people than any other source has before I think the election campaigns are going to be turning to use them as a main channel to reach their audience. A third party candidate can now reach as many people as the main runners throughout the elections. Previously, this was never the case. Even the networks spend less time showing the presidential race, which is why people are now turning to the new channel of blogging. These blogs are definitely going to be taken seriously throughout the nation and I will continue to use them for my personal use to see what other Americans in my position have to say.
http://www.nysun.com/blogs/latest-politics/2008/09/union-big-no-contact-from-obama-camp-abo.html
Tim McKinless
The internet presents many new and exciting possibilities to the existing fields of communication and journalism. One of the most visible products of this information revolution is the so called blog, or weblog. These are basically nothing more than journals published either independently or on a larger site such as CNN or Google. Because blogs can be set up by anyone they are seen as opening up journalism to the masses, effectively allowing anyone to become their own news source. This presents several consequences, both positive and negative. On the positive side, blogs have allowed journalism to become an open field instead of a closed community dominated by several established sources. This creates an opportunity for a wide spectrum of opinion and views that otherwise may have been blocked out. It also allows for new methods of media consumption through technologies like RSS which enable a reader to create their own "newspaper" from a variety of sources. However, the negatives of blogging are often the strong points of traditional media. Because anyone can publish whatever they desire, blogging has little if any of the credentials that longtime news organizations pride themselves on. Just because someone publishes something on a blog does not mean it is true and fact checked as you would expect in a major media source. Traditional sources are more likely to present a "balanced" coverage because it is in their best business interests to appeal to a wide audience while a blog is more likely to publish biased information because most are not publishing with the goal of becoming a legitimate business entity. Despite this blogs are also capable of presenting more balanced coverage then traditional media if it is run by a responsible journalist who makes an active effort to be responsible instead of pandering to advertisers as a large media conglomerate may. The site I choose to look at is the NYTime's political blog and I feel that it accurately portrays balanced coverage. It combines the best of both worlds as it has the immediacy and efficiency of a blog along with the credibility of the New York Times.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
Web blogs are more personal and more detailed oriented than traditional media outlets used for journalism. When looking at a blog, most people feel secure that they are getting unfiltered media that could tell them the "real truth" about news events. Unlike newspapers, news programs, and other traditional media outlets, the blog can be biased, not censored, and sometimes, not even accurate. I feel like with anything on the internet, blogs need to be taken in with caution and should be background checked like any other internet source before a person really trusts what is said on the blog.
Television and newspapers need to be fact checked, combed for written mistakes, and attempt to be neutral or unbiased when reporting what is going on. Unlike blogs, people are secure in the knowledge that someone is making sure all the information is accurate at the time of the broadcast or printing. However, the person in control of the television station, or the newspaper can decide to not broadcast a specific story or to have it framed differently for the viewers because of the image the station is trying to project or the viewers it is trying to pull in. I don't feel as if I am always getting the full story when watching news programs or reading paper articles but that is why I tend to look for other sources such as blogs, other newspapers, etc.
In the 2008 Election, the presidential canidates are using many different types of channels to gain access to the voters who normally are not very interested in what is going on; the young people. The Democratic National Convention had its own youtube profile, a web blog, a facebook, and a myspace page. These are all examples of social networking sites that many young people are part of and frequent. I think this is a positive outlet for the political community to really get involved with the young people in the country and the candidates are really trying to upgrade to the Web 2.0 with their campaigns.
The one blog article I looked up was called "McCain: Obama wants condoms for five-year-olds?" The article is by FoxNews and talks about an old vote Obama did back in 2003 to educate young children on the possible dangers of sex offenders and other harmful aspects that could affect them. Several laws similar to what Obama was voting for exist in other states. But McCain in his slander ad basically hints that Obama is not family oriented and wants to ruin innocent children with sex education before they learn to read. While the blog clears up the misconception, it is not a big enough news story to be covered in traditional media. It does give the reader an additional perspective on what Obama is interested in and how McCain really feels about it.
Blogs can make negative ad campaigns spread very quickly, but it certainly can impact democratic voters to think second thoughts. I know I use blogs as additional sources of information or little tidbits but it is not the only source I use. Some of the additional perspectives I gain through blogs do make me think a little more on certain subjects and they can be very useful in that manner.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/mccain-obama-wanted-condoms-for-five-year-olds/
It is said that the media (and all different kinds of it) are there to present all sides of the story and to get pertinent information to the citizens of this country. In my opinion, it is missing one key factor--who and how this information will effect those all around the country. Something that the media is forbidden from exposing is opinions, which are basically the thoughts of the people that may very well be effected the most by the topic at hand.
In the case of this heightened election, each candidate is doing everything they can to win the votes of the people of the US. The ways in which these people receive the information about these things is through television, newspapers, etc. The information is presented in a "neutral" light, and the reader or viewer is left to decipher what they just heard or read really means to them. To some, it's not easy to depict the real meanings or effects these moves may have on them personally, and blogs are the place where these in depth messages can be brought to terms in which the average citizen can understand and form opinions about.
I do not think that blogs are the "real story" at all, because they are in fact opinions, but they do shed some light on the words that are coming out of the hopeful Presidential candidates. In this stage of the game, these men are saying any and everything they can to win over these votes, and having some guidance to the true meanings behinds some of this foreign talk is what most people need. So reading a blog about how the two candidate's plans for topics such as the "No Child Left Behind" acts will effect the country in relation to each citizen's actual life is easier to form an opinion around than hearing the carefully prepared statements of the men trying to persuade us all. With these speeches and tactics through presentation against us, the words may not come out the way they will actually play out in the future.
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/
The internet revolution has brought an entirely new method of getting news and opinions across the globe or within any sized community. Aside from instant information from credible sources, the internet has few protections from people taking sides of any issues. Blogging on politics is easily the greatest back and forth debate of relevant, irrelevant, misleading, true and false information dealing with political issues and candidates. Although news sources have all been becoming increasingly bipartisan and reliable when informing the public on political news, bloggers have little or no credibility on what they’re blogging about. When browsing through the blogs on FOX News, the original blog authors often vary in what side of the issue they take. I read in depth on an article and blog titled “Biden hits GOP on stem cells: Was he talking about Palin?” which appeared to explain both sides of a story. When reading through the blogs, even more interesting facts came to light that changed my opinion on the issue but I wasn’t entirely sure what to believe. This proves that it is imperative to do your own research on political issues and always be skeptical in believing anything that you read or see on television. Blogging, the internet and Web 2.0 all definitely add to the ability to gain information on any topic that one wants to investigate but credibility and sources must always be looked at. It is important to always be skeptical no matter how credible the sources seem to be because our entire society is based on taking sides of different issues. Looking at both sides of the debate is important to see things in the greater picture. When researching candidates for the upcoming presidential election, the best method is to look at the candidates own websites and search credible sites that do their best to explain both sides of every story.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/biden-hits-gop-on-stem-cells-was-he-talking-about-palin/#comments
I believe that bloggers with nonpartisan intentions may attempt to give a balanced view, however depending on their resources may not be able to do this. When there is a limitation in information sources, this should be indicated by the blogger, if not then the message will be skewed. Blogs may be just as skewed however as reports on television, the most accurate are full conferences that one can view on television. One will never get to the full picture if there is just one source telling its account, their should be several analysts present of different backgrounds if the message is not directly coming from the candidate, in my opinion. While candidates are using different modes such as the internet to connect to their audience one questions whether it is the candidate of one of his or her assistants operating this new mode of communication. The information that I found in the different blogs could have been mention on television depending on the station that was being watched. Overall, however, the topics the bloggers seemed to be interested in were much more specific and detailed than would be mentioned on television (or relatively of less mass concern). But I do find blogs useful on pinpointing very specific issues that may be useful to the very researchful and interested voter.
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/
Post a Comment