Media Influence on the 2008 Election

The below video has been circulating around the internet for the past few days. Although I don’t fully agree with its message, I thought I would share it because I think that media bias is something that needs addressing. An unbiased documentary by an established source on how the media handled this election would be very interesting and useful. The below video, a promotion for an upcoming documentary, should be taken with a grain of salt. I’m not sure I trust the randomness of the sample of voters, especially those selected for this video.

Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test - Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Source: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642

It’s interesting how so many people could unanimously pick up on the Saturday Night Live references and sensational stories, yet they knew nothing about the important things like which party controls congress, or who is Nancy Pelosi and what is her party affiliation. It sort of sheds some light on why congress doesn’t get nearly enough blame for the problems this country is facing. On thing the video and poll demonstrates is the abysmal ability of McCain’s campaign to educate people.

The McCain’s campaign’s strategy of going on Saturday Night Live to participate in self-deprecating skits was not a good strategy at all. They only legitimized the jokes about McCain and Palin that were only meant to be jokes. It’s so interesting that they took that route. They should have spent that effort trying to get through to people about more than just taxes and Joe the Plumber. People, no matter how educated, can form their own opinion on issues. I really believe that. Ask someone how they feel about Issue A and tell them who supports what side, and they’ll dig down into their emotions and rationales to come up with an answer. If you don’t talk about the issues, like in this election, people won’t vote on the issues. They’ll vote on what that funny SNL impersonator took out of context.

Trying to read between the lines in the papers and see the full truth in TV and internet news media is a lot of work. Most people aren’t going to take the initiative to do that all on their own. I didn’t have nearly as much time to pay attention in this election as I did back in 2004, and I found it really hard figuring out what to believe. It’s a shame that for more than one person in this country, this election was nothing but a popularity contest. But a lot of smart people chose Obama for good reasons, and a lot of smart people voted for McCain for good reasons.

So what are we supposed to do about this? Implement a litmus test for voters? If they fail to make a minimum, they fail to qualify to vote? No, you can’t do that. People just need to do a better job of getting the message out and trying to connect with people better. The ability to do that is exactly why Obama did so well in this election and it is why he will be an effective and popular President.

A Lot To Live Up To

2008 has been a remarkable year. Not only has this year been a new chapter in my life for many reasons, but it’s been a milestone in American politics.

The last 8 years have been… uh, well, you were there. I can see these times being referred to as the “Bush Years” in history books. It will sound something like this: “Characterized by two unpopular wars, poor economic conditions, and an overall feeling of stagnation, the Bush Years mark a time when America wanted change. This period was followed by… **INSERT HOW OBAMA PERFORMS HERE** …”

Eight years ago actually feels like a long, long time. My first serious interest in politics began during the end of the Clinton administration. It was a very scandalous time, and I recall that mind-blowing moment when Clinton uttered the phrase “it depends on what the definition of the word is, is.” I was instantly hooked on politics at that moment.

It was the new Millennium and I was finishing up high school in a very, very conservative part of the country. A small, rural North Dakota town. I had a Government class and I will never forget how biased and opinionated the teacher was. He would start each class by summarizing everything his hero, Rush Limbaugh, had said on the radio during his drive into school from Valley City. The worst part was that my classmates seemed to be 95% conservative-leaning and 5% liberal-leaning. So no one would stand up and fight for the opposing view. I got really frustrated when for whatever reason, we only watched the debates from the Republican primaries in class and did not include the Democratic debates.

A wise English/Journalism teacher instructed me around the same time while writing research papers to always devote a portion to explaining the opposing view. That really stuck with me and could very well be a big part of why I’m such a centrist. When I see legitimate newspapers not following that simple rule, it really annoys me quite a bit.

So back to Government class… I can recall my classmates’ reactions during the Bush/Gore debates which we watched in class. They really did not like Gore’s temperament, they found him arrogant and were turned off by him for that reason alone. Who can forget the “I invented the internet” line? They sure got a kick out of that and it turned into a great Gore-bashing session rather than an impartial high school Government class. Of course, the teacher only fed those superficial reactions rather than diverting them to actual issues. I have a feeling that was a really bad lesson for some students and they may have applied the same decision-making to this election. But many of them were very smart, much smarter than I was, it certainly doesn’t mean you’re stupid if you’re conservative. Seeing North Dakota listed as a swing state in the polls right before the election was quite the surprise.

What really aggravated me in this Government class was when the teacher assigned weekly reports on the election, and he would pick articles from NewsMax.com for us to write about. If you’re not familiar with NewsMax, it is not and has never been a fair and balanced news source. It is pro-conservative all the way and clearly so. When I asked if I could choose a different news source, I was told to stick to the assignment. I took that as a no at first, but realized it wasn’t necessarily a no.

The truth is, I actually did agree with a lot of the things Bush was saying in that campaign, but I just found the bias and unfairness to be shocking. So I played the devil’s advocate, and in our mock votes and debates I fought for the Gore side as hard as I could. I dissented by using MSNBC and CNN articles on the same topic as the assigned NewsMax article, even though it wasn’t the assignment. I turned in the paper, expecting him to comment on my refusal to follow instruction, but he never did. I kept getting A’s and he never said a word to me about it.

I reflect on that now and wonder if that was what he wanted us to do all along, to see through the bias and think for ourselves. I wasn’t the best student in school, but I have to say that was one of my prouder moments when I finished up the year so well in that class. Ironically, I was one of only a couple of students in the class who wasn’t old enough that November to vote in the actual election.

Then I came to Minnesota for art school, and found things to be quite the opposite politically. I had two or three teachers who were very preachy about politics during classes. The Iraq war was just beginning and it had them very concerned. One instructor, who was of British descent, reflected on his childhood during World War II in England, and he broke down into tears in front of the whole class. He urged us to protest this new war in Iraq and think of the innocent civilians. He said there were other ways to rectify 9/11. The whole class strongly agreed and most of their arguments were complete conspiracy. Although the instructor’s emotions were certainly touching, I sat there thinking to myself, feeling like I needed to be the devil’s advocate again. In a strange twist of deja vu, I had a class a couple of quarters later where the instructor asked us to listen to Minnesota Public Radio and write about the issues of the week. Minnesota Public Radio is very, very left-leaning.

Time went on and internet blogs exploded, opinions were all over the place and I was reading and writing plenty. I was against Kerry/Edwards at all costs, the unanimous hatred of Bush seemed unfair. You see, I didn’t feel Bush only represented himself, he represented the political views of so many people in this country, and their views were being reduced to ridicule. I never stood up for Bush, I stood up for the views of those people, and many of those views I actually still hold firmly within my beliefs to this day, yet some views I have changed on after a few years of thinking about things and seeing the effects of certain policy decisions.

So I’ve flip-flopped from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004, but 2008 felt very different. I’ve always been one of those pesky centrists who doesn’t just pick a side and pledge their wholehearted support. My ballot was big-time across party-lines in this election. I’ll save my views on our senator candidates for another day. Focusing on the Presidential candidates, I believed they would both make a good President. There was no lesser of two evils this time. There was definitely some unfairness. Plenty of unfairness. But overall it was a more honest campaign than 2004 as long as you didn’t listen to the PAC ads and read too much of the online junk.

I honestly thought the nation would take to McCain better than they did, I’ve followed him ever since the primaries in 2000 and he really is the “Maverick” that he claims to be. I thought that would resonate with people, especially in these divisive times, but it didn’t. His age and his somber speeches compared to Obama’s confident, inspirational speeches required a big move that would energize the campaign. Bringing in Sarah Palin did just that, for a few days, but after an interview with Katie Couric and a few other gaffes, it was all over before she even had the chance to debate Biden.

After that, all Obama had to do was turn on the cruise control and take the high road while the media tore Sarah Palin apart. It was an easy win for Obama at that point, but I believe that if McCain had not taken that chance with Palin, the results would not have been much different.

Ultimately, I agreed with a lot of what McCain supports, and disagreed with several things Obama supports, but I voted based on what I really felt is best for everyone overall. I put a few issues aside and I didn’t let that bother me. I was too tired of the divisiveness and hearing people say “I’m gonna move to Canada,” I’m going to “take to the streets,” or I’m going to secede from the union!” Under Obama I’m confident the economy will get better and maybe not only will Liz and I be able to start a family in a house, but a lot of other people will get back into their homes. I actually think the pull-out from Iraq will be done responsibly under Obama. He doesn’t subscribe to the Kucinich pull out on day one plan, so I’m comfortable with that.

I think that Gen. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama said it best,

I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

He also commented on Sarah Palin,

“Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president,” Powell said. “And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.”

Frankly, Palin was the nail in the coffin for me. She forced me to look at this election from a different angle. Still, I look at this page on Obama’s stances and there are a lot of things there that I don’t like so much. It sure would have been nice to hear about more than just taxes and Palin’s goofs in the last couple months of the election so these things could have been clarified and debated.

It looks like Obama has folks nervous about gun control laws already. CNN reports,

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority. Video Watch shoppers snap up guns of all types »

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers — a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models — such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military’s M-16 — and is running low on others.

Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.

Evidently there are already plenty of people fearing the Obama policy changes, while others are already grouping Obama with Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Come on guys, let’s let him be President at least one day first. Let’s not go printing a national Barack Obama day on the calendar just yet.

After witnessing the love-affair the media had with Obama in this election, I don’t think that the mainstream media will scrutinize him at the same level as they did with the Bush Administration. He has a lot to live up to and I hope he’ll be held to it.

I’m sure I’ll find myself being the usual devil’s advocate throughout this administration. Who will I be defending? Most likely the underdog, as usual. Come to think of it, I’m the only person in Minnesota Vikings country who isn’t a Minnesota Vikings fan, so I guess I have a bit of a nonconformist streak in me and it’s just the way I am. Regardless, I still think America made the right choice. A new era is upon us, and I’m feeling pretty good about it.

Go Steelers!

Apple vs Big Apple

Another big trademark issue this week:

The Big Apple has a new logo, and Apple says: Drop dead.

At issue is the emblem for New York City’s GreeNYC campaign, which has started to appear around the city on bus shelters, hybrid gasoline-electric taxicabs and even Whole Foods shopping bags.

The GreeNYC logo shows a stylized apple with a stalk and a leaf. It bears a resemblance to Apple’s famous logo — a resemblance Apple says infringes on its trademark. Read more…

A company’s brand is their lively hood. I don’t blame any company for vigorously defending their brand, Apple especially. Apple has gotten to that point in brand development where they don’t even need to write out their name on ads anymore, they just put the icon in the corner and everyone knows who it is. Target does the same thing. So since a little Apple icon is their whole identity, if anyone else out there uses a stylized Apple they’re going to be scrutinized for possibly diluting Apple’s brand.

When you register a trademark, you have to specify in which class or industry you will be using it to conduct business. You’d specify something like computers, food & beverage, telecommunications, etc. If someone uses a similar name or logo in a class where your trademark isn’t registered, you have a great case. If they aren’t in your industry or class, it’s a lot more difficult to prove dilution. NYC doesn’t make computers, and Apple doesn’t make cities. Right? Case closed?

Unfortunately, not in this case. NYC will probably get to use their Apple, it’s really not that similar. But if they let one Apple through without saying anything, they have to let all of them through. They need to get it down on paper why this one is isn’t an issue, just to ensure no precedent is set that will work against them in a more legitimate claim in the future.

Owning Color

So last week Deutsche Telekom, owners of the global T-Mobile brand, sent Engadget a late birthday present: a hand-delivered letter direct from their German legal department requesting the prompt discontinuation of the use of the color magenta on Engadget Mobile. Yep, seriously. Read more…

T-Mobile, old buddy. Listen, you gotta pick your fights. UPS Brown? I would sue for UPS Brown. Marlboro Red? Oh, Absolutely. Sue for Marlboro Red. Owens Corning Pink? (Think fiberglass insulation, only one company can make it pink.) Yeah, Owens Corning Pink is definitely worth it. But T-Mobile Magenta? Is T-Mobile Magenta really worth a lawsuit? Even if we were to falsely assume that there are only 256 colors in the world, I would just let T-Mobile Magenta go. Does anybody like Magenta? Suing for a color? Brilliant. Suing for Magenta? Come on… Maybe if it were Magenta’s evil twin sister, Rhodamine Red, this would be a different story.

I kid around but actually T-Mobile’s sometimes excessive use of Magenta is just as widely recognizable as UPS’s sometimes excessive use of the color brown. Like UPS’s use of Brown, it stands out in their industry and they have a right to protect that. At this point, T-Mobile’s unique image would ultimately become diluted and tarnished if others not associated with T-Mobile were allowed to actively use Magenta.

The complaint against Engadget is plausible. It would be impossible to get away with saying that the color Magenta isn’t widely recognized as an integral part of T-Mobile’s brand. Trademarking a color may seem silly, but it’s certainly a protection under trademark law. I’ll mention UPS Brown once again. It’s trademarked. A candy bar company can use UPS Brown all they want, but if FedEx decided to start painting their trucks UPS Brown, they’d be in a heap of trouble.

(Note: While I’m on the UPS topic, look back on my furious posting about the UPS logo “modernization.”)

The argument in many places across the web is that EngadgeT-Mobile doesn’t create confusion or dilution because EngadgeT-Mobile doesn’t sell wireless phones, devices, or wireless service. It’s really not that simple. The site is a powerful commentator on the wireless industry that profits off consumers in that industry, so by using the elements (colors) of T-Mobile it could be argued that they are showing their website is endorsed by T-Mobile.

It’s easy to have sympathy for the little guy when they are faced with a large corporation, a corporation which I’m sure countless people hate because of billing errors, late fees, and spotty service. Set aside your differences with T-Mobile, and let’s review just what Engadget really is. This is not a little blog with only a couple dozen followers, it’s one of the top 2 or 3 tech blogs out there. The writers on the site make a living off of it, this isn’t their hobby. They make a profit off of advertising dollars. Now they’re specifically profiting in the cell phone industry, and that’s why T-Mobile is definitely not out of line asking them to stop using the color.

By the way, from the T-Mobile website:

T-MOBILE, the T-MOBILE logo, T-ZONES, the T-ZONES design, the HOTSPOT design, T-MOBILE MDA, T-MOBILE SDA, T-MOBILEWEB, the WORLDCLASS logo, the “digits” design, the T-MOBILE acoustic logo, and the color magenta are registered and/or unregistered trademarks of Deutsche Telekom AG in the US and/or other countries.

By the way, I totally own the hex color #00467D. So don’t use it.

Prosecuting Americans for Voting

I thought this was very interesting. A bit scary, actually.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - Plain Dealer Reporter -
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.

Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party. And at least one board member, Sandy McNair, a Democrat, wants the county prosecutor to review the findings.

Are we living in a place where once you’ve picked a political party you’d better stick with it or fear being investigated/prosecuted?

Let’s examine the facts as we know them. There was a primary in Ohio. There were people who voted in that primary. There were people who switched parties to vote in that primary and were forced into signing “affidavits of allegiance,” something that I don’t believe is in the realm of freedom. The vote is supposed to be secret, yes?

For the State to come down on people who voted is wrong. I can decide to vote either Democrat or Republican at ANY point, and am not willing to pledge absolute “allegiance” to either. Meaning, I agree and disagree with a variety of the current tenets of both parties at any given moment. So if I switch parties, the Government is going to come along and “determine my allegiance”? The Government is going to tell me what I believe? Thank you, but no thank you, Mr. McCarthy.

The opposing argument might be the question of why should the vote be secret? This isn’t the general election we’re talking about, it’s a primary. Why shouldn’t they be forced to sign something? If you want to participate in a party’s program, you follow their rules. My answer to that would be that the vote should be secret because I don’t need my neighbors to know who I voted for. I have a right to participate without having to think about anything except who I want to vote for. As long as this is a free-for-all program that involves the State, I have the right for my voice to be heard and have the right to have my voice to be as anonymous as it is in the general election.

If parties want to take this process away and hold the elections themselves because they don’t agree with the results - fine. As long as my neighbor can’t go vote, either. Draw a name out of a hat to determine your nominee. If you want to leave one voter out of the process because you don’t like their politics, you’d better leave everyone out.

Prosecution of Americans for committing the act of voting is ludicrous. I hope the story I linked to above outrages all Americans, no matter what party has your “allegiance.”