The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Art Levine: Grass-Roots Labor Pressure on Specter: "He knows when there's a fire under his ass"
- Darryl A. Cobbin: Attention Luxury Brands: Ostentation is "Out"; Reality is "In"
- Vickie Karp: Third Screen: Lotto Winner Gives Millions to the Arts
- Rob Richie: Post political reporters need to fix gubernatorial election analysis
- Jeff Jarvis: Product v. Process Journalism: The Myth of Perfection v. Beta Culture
- Bruce Wilson: Christian Martyr Movement Head Blesses Huckabee & Gingrich
| Art Levine: Grass-Roots Labor Pressure on Specter: "He knows when there's a fire under his ass" | Top |
| Unflagging grass-roots lobbying pressure on the newly-converted Democratic Senator, Arlen Specter, who previously said he couldn't support the bill, led Specter over the weekend to promise union activists he'd support a compromise version of the bill that would please them. It's a sharply different tone than he took after abandoning his earlier support for the legislation in recent months, both before and after he switched parties. State AFL-CIO leader, Bill George, summed up what's at stake for him: "I've got to tell you, Arlen Specter knows what pressure is," George said before Specter took the stage of a pro-Employee Free Choice Act rally, having invited himself to attend the night before. "He knows when there's a fire under his ass, and you build that fire." State activists, including faith leaders and other progressives joining union members in this strong pro-labor state, have generated since the early spring over 150,000 letters, faxes and phone calls to all of Specter's office in Washington and around the state. On top of that, over 400 small business leaders in Pennsylvania have signed up to back the bill, viewed as essential by supporters to reviving the middle-class and generating consumer spending on their businesses. AFL-CIO communications staffer Marty Marks, who has helped organize the campaign , says he was never deterred by the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that the bill was dead: " I never accepted it for a moment. It's too important, too much of a movement and it's going forward. Something's going to happen, and we're not going to move on our core principles." He says of Specter: "My sense is that he's coming home," to his pro-labor, Democratic Party roots. At a rally for the Employee Free Choice Act that was held before Specter spoke to the state Democratic party, the Senator faced a mixed reaction, and the pressure was palpable (via PA2010 ): During his ten-minute remarks to a couple hundred union workers assembled outside the Westin Convention Center, Specter sought to focus attention on his past support for initiatives important to organized labor, and in what is becoming a familiar talking point, he touted his role in helping to pass President Obama's stimulus package. As workers chanted for him to "pass the vote," he said he was working on a compromise for the "card-check" bill. "I'm committed to find an answer which will satisfy you, and I'm optimistic we can do that," Specter said. But that wasn't good enough for many rank-and-file union members in the crowd--some groaned in displeasure, some booed, and at least one hurled an epithet at Specter. "You want my vote? I want yours!" John Heinlein, a retired ironworker, shouted repeatedly until Specter was forced to acknowledge him. Attempting to calm the crowd, Specter said: "I understand your job's on the line and I understand that my job's on the line. I understand that, and I believe that you'll be satisfied with my vote on this issue. And if you're not, I recognize your right in a free society to cast your vote as you choose." Later, after Specter left the makeshift stage to chants of "Free Choice Act," Heinlein told pa2010.com that Specter was on thin ice. "I voted for him in the past," Heinlein said. "But he can't fence-ride on this. If he wants our support, he has to vote for this. If he votes against this, he'll never get my vote again. While Specter has been courting Democratic leaders, a potential challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak, has been garnering strong support for his support for the Employee Free Choice Act: The contrast between Specter and his new Democratic colleagues was striking. Whereas labor leaders and Democratic members of Congress--including Specter's likely primary opponent, Congressman Joe Sestak (D-7)--took the stage to raucus applause, Specter was greeted far more cooly... In his brief remarks, Sestak was unequivocal in his support for "card-check," which he has sponsored in the past. "Are the facts there about worker intimidation? They are," he said. Clearly enjoying that union workers were approaching him to offer their thanks and support, Sestak told pa2010.com that a compromise could work for him, but only if it the unions support it. "IF we can get EFCA through, I'm here 100 percent," he said. To Stewart Acuff, the special assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO, there are clear political lessons to be drawn from this grass-roots mobilization , duplicated in states with key swing Senators, such as Arkansas and Maine: "What is happening now [with Specter] is the reason we didn't give up when most of the chattering class, pundits, observers and our opponents said the Employee Free Choice Act was dead. You play the whole game, run the whole campaign all the way through, implement your entire plan. We are gonna pass the Employee Free Choice Act because we have waged the most massive grassroots legislative campaign in the history of the American labor movement." He added, "When we win we will have won on the ground!" More on Arlen Specter | |
| Darryl A. Cobbin: Attention Luxury Brands: Ostentation is "Out"; Reality is "In" | Top |
| We've all seen the ads in the glossy magazines: beautiful woman steps off private plane, followed by a porter carrying stacks of Vuitton/Gucci/Bottega Veneta luggage; bikini-clad celebutant stretches out on deck of yacht, dripping in Cartier/Tiffany/DeBeers diamonds. It's got nothing to do with most people's reality. But only a few shorts years ago that didn't matter. The latest "It" bag, coat, car or watch, and the lifestyle they represented, were attainable -- largely via credit debt -- to an ever growing group of people. If not, the beauty and exclusivity of these ads gave the aspiring consumer something to fantasize about. The upwardly mobile wanted a piece of that brand to feel like they attained a certain status in life, and they were willing to spend the extra dollars to send that message to the world. But the U.S. recession and associated global economic meltdown has brought a sea change in the way we're interacting socially, and even those rare few who can splurge on a Burberry coat or a Chopard watch aren't immune. That kind of rarefied branding on a broad scale seems out of touch nowadays. Being fabulously exclusive and flaunting it in people's faces might fly in some local Palm Beach glossy, but it comes across to most consumers as a slap at worst, and insensitive at best. And, if you watched the Grammy's this year, you would have noticed that even hip hop stars are leaving their diamond chains back home in their safes. With so many people suffering, they know that being iced out is no longer cool. I know my own spending habits have changed. I'm a designer junky from way back. Even when I couldn't exactly afford it, I coveted the designer labels and every so often I'd break down and scoop up a pair of Louis Vuitton sneakers. But nowadays it doesn't seem so important. As I'm making the transition from executive to entrepreneur, my family and I have made the conscious choice to scale back. I've popped all the nice tags I'll ever need. I'm not buying for myself for a long while to come because I will be shopping in my own closet, and when I do it's more likely to be during a massive store sale, or at Target. When we buy clothes for our kids, it's straight to the Gap sale rack, or to a discounter such as Marshall's. There's no shame in a bargain. Who needs a Ralph Lauren undershirt anyway? Hanes will do just fine. What counts is not the status, it's the experience. The media's just beginning to really talk about the cultural implications of this shift. I saw it the other day when Oprah had a show on the social classes. She talked about how people who consider themselves middle class are losing their social status overnight. Mortgaged to the hilt with maxed out credit cards, these people were living the dream but they were one paycheck away from disaster. When they lost their jobs the finer things in life they'd strived for were a distant dream. One woman, a former executive, talked wistfully about the days she could afford designer shoes and manicures. Today she's facing foreclosure. Instead of going to the salon, she lines up at food banks to stretch a dollar and feed her children. And that's the reality of millions of people around the country right now. Even the uppermost classes who haven't lost it all are feeling the change. Oprah touched on it, and other shows have been talking about how the very wealthy still shop for luxury brands, but they're doing it on the down low. Instead of something splashed with a monogram, they want items that are plain and discrete. The uber rich are confessing that they are embarrassed to be seen walking down the street with multiple luxury brand shopping bags, so they slip into lower-end stores like H&M, and stuff their designer purchases inside that store's more modest, white plastic shopping bags. Whether it is a matter of following their social conscience in the face of so much unemployment and hardship, or just a desire to be seen doing the right thing, clearly a switch has flicked inside the mind of the luxury brand consumer. But I don't think the luxury brands themselves are getting it yet. They're either hunkering down, focusing more on their core wealthy and celebrity customers, or advertising less. One marketer of a leading luxury hotel brand, interviewed recently on a Web cast, was even defiant, saying, "F@*# the recession!" What planet is this guy on?! Yes, I realize that it is textbook business and marketing strategy to focus on your core, particularly when sales are sluggish. However, the stewards of luxury brands who are not bold enough to truly redefine luxury in the new world economic order for fear of diminishing the value of their brands are making a big mistake. There has been a cataclysmic shift in values amongst ALL consumers, including those of considerable wealth. As a result, a new core consumer is emerging. From car manufacturers to home developers to fashion labels and high end spirits, it's time for these companies to re-position themselves and lead consumers to a whole new definition of luxury that is more about the quality of the experience than the status symbol. In other words, don't show some fur-clad woman standing alone on the steps of a French palace, clutching her designer python bag. Show her having lunch with her girlfriends and having a blast! Forget the yacht. Show someone sipping that top flight tequila brand at a swanky yet accessible pool party. More people can relate to it, and they'll be able to see how the brand and the product are there to augment the wonderful time they're having. Instead of offering an escape fantasy, with heiresses trotting around in Manolo Blahnik shoes, put that footwear to work in a context that's real. Take a leaf from the page of the reality shows. Focus more on the experiences consumers can and actually do have. The Louis Vuitton bag can still accompany that experience, but companies have to determine where to place products in terms of the quality of the experience instead of making the product the hero to be coveted exclusively by the rich and the famous. Of course, consideration to new products that enable consumers to experience a luxury brand at a more reasonable price is key. Brands could achieve this by reevaluating product size relative to price, for example. I think Sean "Diddy" Combs' Ciroc vodka campaign is genius in the way it elegantly evokes the era of Sinatra. His overall brand and persona is about entertainment and celebration. I get what he's doing, and he does it well. But even Diddy going to have to change with the times. He's going to have to bring it down and make this brand attainable as well as aspirational. Click it down a few levels. You don't have to be in a multi-million dollar penthouse to show people having a damn good time. There's a new zeitgeist for luxury brand consumers that's here to stay, and goes deeper than the inherent desirability and beauty of the product. Hip, young consumers especially are all about making intelligent choices. Sure, they still want to have status, but they're using their smarts and savvy by selecting brands that use recycled materials, provide an opportunity to help the community, or send a percentage of proceeds to charity. They don't want labels that scream at you. It's as much about what really matters as it is about art, design and fit. They're not letting the material possession define who they are. It's all about acuity, individuality and creativity. Michelle Obama is the perfect embodiment of this new socially conscious consumerism. She's not the kind of First Lady who's going to be seen daily in head-to-toe Chanel or Givenchy. She mixes it up between Thakoon, J.Crew and Gap, and her way of interacting on the world stage in these clothes - enjoying her kids, working in soup kitchens, standing beside her husband and greeting world leaders - has done wonders for sales of the labels she wears. Why? Because she looks great, even when she's planting vegetables in the White House garden. It's all about the very real experiences she lives through with compassion, creativity, individuality and intellect. There's a special quality to the way she conducts herself in the public eye. She has grace and class, but she's not this elegant package you can't touch. Everything about her is approachable and relatable, yet very much something to aspire to. So luxury marketers take note: Forget Paris Hilton. If you want to redefine luxury for this time and beyond, the First Lady is the new "It" girl to watch. Darryl Cobbin is a veteran marketing executive, serving in senior marketing positions at The Coca-Cola Company, Boost Mobile and Twentieth Century Fox Films. His self-published book on marriage and family is due for release later this year. More on Michelle Obama | |
| Vickie Karp: Third Screen: Lotto Winner Gives Millions to the Arts | Top |
| In 2007, Cynthia Stafford won $120 million with her father and older brother. You know all those stories about folks who hit Lotto only to have their lives fall apart? Cynthia Stafford is not one of those people. Where she once gave contributions of, say, $25 or $100 to her favorite arts institutions, she now gives millions. As for her own humanity and insight, well, she proved that long before turning to the humanities -- or winning Lotto. Ten years ago, her younger brother, who was hearing-impaired, died in a tragic car crash, and she took in his five children. "I think about him every day," she told me when we spoke this week. And these days, she's pretty busy. Third Screen: The million dollar question, or in your case the 120 million dollar question, is how did winning all this money change your life? Stafford: My life is pretty much the same. I just have more resources to do what I love to do. I'm involved with the media, and excited about that because it's something I've wanted to do for a while. So, yes, I'm more involved with the arts. But in terms of family, we still do things pretty much the same. I'm pretty down to earth. I like to keep things simple. Third Screen: You are now the executive producer of a major forthcoming film based on Don DeLillo's novel, White Noise , which won the National Book Award in 1985. How did that come about? Stafford: Don Delillo's novel, White Noise , has a strong and really loyal following, and everyone's wanted to see this happen for a long time. The option process was circling for over 20 years before I came along. Don had sort of given up. Another production partner and I secured the option. I'd read the novel. I loved it. I rescued it. Third Screen: You're also on the board of the Geffen Theater, a major locus for the performance arts and studded with famous board members including David Geffen and Steven Spielberg. What's that like? Stafford: I have always supported the Geffen with small contributions. When I decided to get involved after I won the lottery, my personal caveat was that I want arts education, not renovating the seats or putting in new planters. Geffen had already been doing some programs exposing children in LA to arts, through after school programs, for example. I was in a position to further and develop those goals. Third Screen: What started your interest in the arts? Stafford: As a child, I would attend plays and my parents, especially my mom, would take us to museums. She was very much into indoctrinating culture into her children so that was part of my life growing up. Making sure we took in the arts. Third Screen: Why arts education specifically? Stafford: Arts education for children is essential, and I'm disheartened over the fact that funding is continually being taken away from the school system for arts education. It builds our culture. It puts options and ideas and perspective on life into the hands of a community. Without that, you have linear thinking people. I don't think that's great to have in society. Third Screen: Why a million dollars to the Geffen? Stafford: What I really like about the Geffen program is that it's not just for young people, it's also for seniors. We send out transportation to schools and seniors and bring them to the theater. We send educational materials to teachers and then the students come to the play and afterwards, interact with the actors. There were not too many theaters of this kind when I started attending years ago, and I became interested in it. It's great looking. It was recently renovated. It has great energy. Third Screen: Winning this much money is like being cast into a new country in a way. Is it disconcerting? You don't seem ruined. Stafford: I'm a pretty comfortable person. I'm comfortable with myself and with whomever I interact and they're the same with me, and I have a great time. I'm a people person so I love constantly meeting new people. It's wonderful. Third Screen: What's on your slate? Stafford: I'm speaking to a few networks. One of the shows I'm discussing stars me and will be called Fairy Godmother . We're still hammering details out, and the name may change, but it will be a very natural extension of who I am and what I'm doing. Another is tentatively called The Making of a Mogul . And then there's travel, writing, getting the film out there. Third Screen: As your own Fairy Godmother, what's your wish? How do you convey your excitement and love of the arts to others? Stafford: I try to be an example to follow for my kids, and to encourage others to do the same in their lives. Kids need someone to guide, and a parent or guardian is the most natural choice for that. When they see that the parent has any sort of interest in the arts or anything else, it encourages the child. Third Screen: Do you think you'll write a book about that? How to raise an artist? Stafford: I will write book about that. We need to encourage imagination. We need to dream towards our goals and see a bigger picture. I'm about being as child-like as we can. It keeps us creating and manifesting what we want in life and never giving up. I'm like a Peter Pan that way. I constantly encourage my kids to never give up on their dreams, to always believe. Third Screen: What do you say to people who complain that you need to win Lotto to do what you love in life? Stafford: I believe we should never use the word never, and that what you say will manifest in your life. So I say do what I did with my kids. I didn't have the funds to give my kids many of the things they wanted. I would tell them 'we will get it when the time comes.' I transformed the impossible and the difficult in that way. If parents constantly say 'we can't' and 'I don't have,' then they don't open up a space in which to let things grow and develop. So I don't talk that way. Live in a realm of possibility, and enjoy what's available along the way. Third Screen: How is your own story reflected in your projects? Stafford: There's so much white noise around us. We have to tune it out and focus on what matters. My younger brother, Keith Stafford, was a great guy. I miss him dearly, but I have his kids. I have such a great time with them. Jahmil, my 17-year-old, is a terrific sketch artist. He just looks at a person and he can replicate their face on paper. Such great powers of observation! My older one, Charmaine, wants to learn how to open a fashion line. Sigourney, my musical one, is just a talent all around and still having fun figuring it all out. She has a rock band with her brother, Qumani. We have a lot going on but I like to keep my home drama-free. My dad helps out with raising the kids, and we have some help as we need it. I don't want to call winning Lotto a miracle, but what's happened for us is certainly a blessing. Third Screen: You've formed a production company called Queen Nefertari. What does the name signify? Stafford: Queen Nefertari was an important queen in Egyptian history. I feel an affinity for her. A lot of who she was then is about who I hope to be today. She was a peaceful queen who supported the arts. She was mogul in her own right, in her day. I guess we would say she got equal billing with the Pharoah, and that they were the first, or one of the first, couples to bring peace to the planet. She holds a dear place in my heart and in history. She was a leader and yet didn't usurp power. She was a great co-ruler. | |
| Rob Richie: Post political reporters need to fix gubernatorial election analysis | Top |
| The Washington Post has a history of some of the nation's strongest political reporting, but its 2009 analysis of the politics of upcoming gubernatorial elections has a troubling pattern. The Fix reporter Chris Cillizza and long-time stalwart Dan Balz certainly know their politics, but too often assess upcoming gubernatorial elections through the lens of recent presidential elections. A mountain of hard numbers show how virtually irrelevant presidential elections can be for projecting results in gubernatorial elections. Here are examples of recent Post political coverage. In today's article on the 2009 elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, Balz writes that "... both states went for Barack Obama last November. But Democratic leaders expect difficult races." Later he observes "New Jersey has become a reliably Democratic state in presidential races, and Democrats hold a huge advantage in party registration, but the incumbent's problems give Republicans hope" (perhaps the same hope Republicans had in winning 1993 and 1997 gubernatorial races in the state despite those same Democratic advantages). As to Virginia , Balz writes "But it was Obama's victory last November that changed Virginia's national hue from red to purple. Nevertheless, early polls show McDonnell leading all three of his potential rivals." On May 29th, Chris Cillizza's reviewed upcoming gubernatorial elections in detail in his always entertaining column The Fix. In picking the 10 states most likely to change hands, he regularly weaves in references to the presidential election results, such as: - Oklahoma: "It's hard to see the state that gave Obama his lowest percentage in the 2008 putting a Democrat in as its next governor" -- even though that's exactly what happened in 2002 and 2006 - Hawaii: Likely to go Democratic in part because the "simple fact is that Hawaii is among the most Democratic states in the country' -- as it was when Republicans won in 2002 and 2006 - On California's Democratic lean, "Whitman's willingness to spends gobs of her own money make her someone to be taken seriously even though California is a state that heavily favors Democrats at the statewide level" -- yet Republicans have held the governor's office for more than 21 of the past 26 years - On Michigan, "Republicans desperately need to show viability in a Midwestern, manufacturing-heavy state if they want to have any chance in 2012 against President Obama, and, today, Michigan looks like their best chance" -- although a victory in a governor's race in Michigan in 2002 might be hardly more prophetic for 2004 than eight Democratic pickups in governor's races in 2001-3 in states carried by George Bush in 2004 The truth is that presidential elections are not an accurate way to assess gubernatorial elections. Although an amazingly powerful predictor of other federal races, especially open U.S. House races and future presidential elections, it is almost meaningless when looking at races for governor. Here's one way to look at it. Out of our 50 states 35 have had governors from more than one party this decade even as only ten states (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada New Hampshire, New Mexico , North Carolina, Ohio and Virgina) have been won by both political parties in presidential elections. Among the states that have flipped between parties in elections for governor this decade are most of the heavily partisan states in presidential races. Consider the ten most Democratic states in the 2008 presidential election (all of which were solidly Democratic in the 2000-2008 presidential races). Five of those states have Republican governors, and only one (Delaware) has only had a Democratic governor throughout the decade. In fact, two states (Rhode Island and Connecticut) have only had Republican governors since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, of the 13 most heavily Republican states in the 2008 presidential election (all won by Republican presidential candidates in 2000-2008), seven have Democratic governors, including the single most Republican state (Wyoming) and the third most Republican state (Oklahoma). Let's get into more detail. The 10 Most Democratic Presidential States - Five GOP Governors, including the Top Three Following are the ten most Democratic states in order of partisanship, with states' Democratic partisanship in presidential races (which represents the difference between the national popular vote results in 2008 and the results in that state) and what's been going on in gubernatorial elections. 1. Hawaii (69.5% Democratic): Republican governor first elected in 2002 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won the state since the Reagan landslide in 1984 2. Vermont (64.5% D): Republican governor first elected in 2002 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won the state since 1988. 3. Rhode Island ( 61.0% D): Republican governors since 1994 elections even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won the state since 1984. 4. New York (59.8% D): Democratic governor, but a Republican governor from 1995 to 2007 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won the state since 1984. 5. Massachusetts (59.6% D): Democratic governor, but Republican governors from 1991 to 2007 even though last carried by a Republican presidential candidate in 1984. 6. Illinois (59.2%, D): Democratic governor, but Republican governors from 1977 to 2003 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't carried the state since 1988. 7. Delaware (58.9%, D): Democratic governors since 1993. Republican last won state in 1988, when Bush outpaced his national average in the state. 8. California (58.7%, D): A Republican governor, as has been the case in all but four years and ten months since 1983 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't carried the state since 1988. 9. Maryland (58.5%, D): A Democratic governor, but a Republican governor from 2003-2007. A Republican presidential candidate hasn't won Maryland since 1988. 10. Connecticut (57.7%, D): Only Republican governors since 1995 even though a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won the state since 1988. Seven Democratic Governors in the 13 Most Strongly Republican State s Here's a rundown of the 13 most Republican states in the 2008 presidential election and a review of their governors. 1. Wyoming (69.4% Republican): A Democratic governor since 2002 election even though a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried Wyoming since Lyndon Johnson's landslide in 1964. 2. Utah (68.8% R): Republican governors since 1984. A Democrat presidential candidate hasn't won Utah since 1964. 3. Oklahoma (67.5% R): A Democratic governor since 2002 election even though a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried the state since 1964. 4. Idaho (65.8% R): Republican governors since 1994 elections. A Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won Idaho since 1964. 5. Alaska (65.7% R): A Republican governor, but Democratic governor from 1995 to 2003 even though a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won Alaska since 1964. 6. Alabama (63.9%, R): A Republican governor since 2002 elections, but previously a Democratic governor in a state not carried by a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976. 7. Arkansas (63.1%, R): A Democratic governor since 2006 elections in a state last won by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1996. 8. Louisiana (62.5%, R): Republican governor since 2007 elections, but previously a Democrat in a state last won by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1996. 9. Kentucky (61.3%, R): Democratic governor in a state that has changed parties twice this decade in a state last won by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1996. 10. Nebraska (61.2%, R): Republican governors since 1998 election in a state last carried by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1964. 11. Kansas (60.8%, R): Democratic governors since 2002 elections in a state last carried by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1964. 12. Tennessee (60.7%, R): Democratic governor since 2002 elections in a state last won by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1996. 13. West Virginia (60.0%, R): Democratic governors since 2000 election in a state last carried by a Democratic presidential candidate in 1996. Governor's Races in 2001-2003: Big Changes, Yet No Correlation to 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections At the federal level in 2002, Republicans had a strong mid-term, picking up several U.S. Senate and House seats. But governor's races were all over the map, with far more than half of gubernatorial elections in 2001-2003 -- 25 in all - resulting in a shift in partisan control. But of those partisan shifts, only 12 went to a candidate of the same party as the presidential candidate who carried the state in 2000. Flipping a coin would be a better method prediction. And while the major parties may huff and puff about the 2009 races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey and what it might mean for the 2010 congressional elections and 2012 presidential elections, they certainly didn't predict much in 2001, when gains for Democrats in those states had no bearing on which party did better nationally in 2002 and 2004. Presidential elections matter in making predictions. But that consistency is generally confined to the federal level. Our top political reporters should know better. Final statistics * Number of states won only by one party in presidential races since 1996: 40 * Number of states won only by one party in gubernatorial races in that period: 11 * Number of states won by one party in gubernatorial races since 1978: 1 (South Dakota) * Number of states won only by one party's candidates for president since 1964: 9 (all Republican - Alaska, Idaho , Kansas , Nebraska , North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota , Utah, Wyoming) * Seven states have had governors from only one party since 1993: Delaware, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Washington. Five are among the nine states that only hold gubernatorial elections in higher turnout presidential elections years. Just two are among the 41 states that hold elections in lower turnout years This analysis draws on FairVote's report Presidential Elections Inequality (2006) and our post-election analysis 2008's Shrinking Battleground . | |
| Jeff Jarvis: Product v. Process Journalism: The Myth of Perfection v. Beta Culture | Top |
| An alarm went off on some desk at the New York Times business section: Oh-oh, time to slam blogs again . But the latest assault reveals as much about The Times and the culture of classical journalism as it does about bloggers. Like the millennial clash of business models in media - the content economy v. the link economy and the inability of one to understand the other - here we see a clash over journalistic culture and methods - product journalism v. process journalism. In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and unfinished stories, calling it a "truth-be-damned approach" and likening it to yellow journalism, the highest insult of the gray class. He hauls out the worst example again - just as bloggers trying to go after MSM reporters do: the Steve Jobs heart attack rumor and Times WMD reporting (or Jayson Blair or Dan Rather), respectively. Darlin leads with TechCrunch and Gawker sharing bogus rumors of Apple buying Twitter. He acknowledges that TechCrunch said in its post that it could not confirm the story. But still, he uses it to jump to the first of his broad-brush generalizations: "Such news judgment is not unusual among blogs covering tech. For some blogs, rumors are their stock in trade." Couldn't one say the same thing about political reporters who spread rumors and trial balloons, knowing they are just that, or business reporters feeding rumors and speculation about mergers or firings? Blogs are hardly alone in scoop mentality. Newspapers invented scoops. When I tweeted about the story, calling it a slap to bloggers, Times Sunday business editor Tim O'Brien - who'd just issued his customary long string of tweets flogging his stories, including this one - responded : "isn't about 'product vs. process' or 'old vs. new'. it's about people publishing things they don't believe to be true. standards." One word: standards. But which standards? Whose standards? The Times' standards, of course. They set the standard, don't they? Well, yes, they do, sometimes. Just not all the standards all the time. At my school , we say we teach what we call the eternal verities of journalism. But I also try to make sure the students are open to new worldviews and new methods and means of journalism. Those can come from bloggers and from the public we serve. Darlin touches on one such new view when he writes: [TechCrunch founder] Mr. Arrington and the other bloggers see this not as rumor-mongering, but as involving the readers in the reporting process. One mission of his site, he said, is to write about the things a few people are talking about, "the scuttlebutt around Silicon Valley." His blog will often make clear that he's passing along a thinly sourced story. To quote Gawker founder Nick Denton, when we put up "half-baked posts" we are saying to our public: Here's what we know, here's what we don't know, what do you know. I believe it is critical to clearly label that, giving caveats and context. The same is true of 24-hour cable news, where the viewer must become the editor, understanding the difference between what is known now and what what can be confirmed later ( see : the West Virgina mining disaster). In short: We who publish must learn how to say what we don't know at least as well as we say what we know. This is journalism as beta. I make a big point of that in What Would Google Do? - that every time Google releases a beta, it is saying that the product is incomplete and imperfect. That is inevitably a call to collaborate. It is - even from Google - a statement of humanity and humility: We're not perfect. Ah, but there's the problem: journalism's myth of perfection. And it's not just journalism that holds this myth. It is the byproduct of the means and requirements of mass production: If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it's perfect because it has to be, whether that product is a car (we are the experts, we took six years to tool up, it damned well better be perfect) or government (where, I'm learning, employees have a phobic fear of mistakes - because citizens and journalists will jump on them) or newspapers (we package the world each day in a box with a bow on it - you're welcome). The posse of pros who jumped on me in Twitter this morning will say that they do make mistakes and corrections but first they always try to get it right - perfect - while bloggers instead spread rumors. But that's where the fundamental misunderstanding comes. It's a matter of timing, of the order of things, of the process of journalism. Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning. I believe the contrast in methodology will become even more stark as we start using tools such as Google Wave to create news collaboratively in present-tense. Online, we often publish first and edit later. We do that on blogs. One could say that 24-hour TV news does that, though I rarely see the editing. Even a division of The New York Times Company - About.com (where I used to consult) - does its work in that order. (That is why About had dozens of writers for every editor [I don't know the mix today], while The Times has three editors for every writer. That level of editing before publication is what makes The Times The Times - both from a journalistic perspective and, today, from an economic perspective; it may be what makes a newsroom like that unsustainable.) Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect. That doesn't mean that we revel in imperfection, as is the implication of The Times' story - that we have no standards. It just means that we do journalism differently, because we can. We have our standards, too, and they include collaboration, transparency, letting readers into the process, and trying to say what we don't know when we publish - as caveats - rather than afterward - as corrections. The problem with this tiresome, never-ending alleged war of blogs vs. MSM (Arrington attacks The Times) and MSM vs. blogs (The Times attacks Arrington) - (Mark Glaser scolded me for rising to The Times' bait - is that it blinds each tribe from learning from the other. Yes, there are standards worth saluting from classical journalism. But there are also new methods and opportunities to be learned online. No one owns journalists or its methods or standards. Robert Picard writes that journalism is not business model; it is not a job; it is not a company; it is not an industry; it is not a form of media; it is not a distribution platform. Instead, journalism is an activity. It is a body of practices by which information and knowledge is gathered, processed, and conveyed. The practices are influenced by the form of media and distribution platform, of course, as well as by financial arrangements that support the journalism. But one should not equate the two. The pity is that there are Timesmen who already are using these new methods. I see bloggers there asking readers to help them with stories, admitting they don't know everything yet - which means they are publishing incomplete news. I wish one of those people had been assigned to this story (if it needed to be written at all) and that such an open-minded, curious journalist could have seen and explained these different worldviews and how they are clashing as they also merge. But that, apparently, was not the assignment. * * * I addressed the myth of perfection in the foreword of Craig Silverman's Regret the Error (now out in paperback ): Nobody's perfect - not even journalists . . . especially not journalists. Reporters and editors make mistakes. Indeed, they are probably more likely than most to do so. For just as bartenders break more glass because they handle more beer, so journalists who traffic in facts are bound to drop some along the way. Yet too often, they won't admit that. What is plainly obvious - even a matter of liturgical confession for people of many faiths - is heretical to the reporting cult: People are fallible. But journalists too often believe they are not. I was one of them. We were trained to seek and attain nothing less lofty than truth. Accuracy. Objectivity. We were the trusted ones. Impartial experts. Fair and balanced. Alan Rusbridger, editor of London's Guardian, said at a 2007 meeting of the Organization of News Ombudsmen at Harvard: "Since a free press first evolved, we have derived our authority from a feeling - a sense, a pretense - that journalism is, if not infallible, something close to it. We speak of ourselves as being interested in the truth, the real truth. We're truth seekers, we're truth tellers, and we tell truth to power." But then he quoted Walter Lippman saying in 1922: "If we assume that news and truth are two words for the same thing we shall, I believe, arrive nowhere." It is time for journalists to trade in their hubris and recapture their humanity and humility. And the best way to do that is simply to admit: We make mistakes. Craig Silverman's examination of the art of the correction in his blog and now this book could not come at a better time for journalism. For the public's trust in news organizations is falling about as fast as their revenues (and, yes, those may be related). One way to earn back that trust is to face honestly and directly the trade's faults. The more - and more quickly - that news organizations admit and correct their mistakes, prominently and forthrightly, the less their detractors will have grounds to grumble about them. But for journalists, to admit mistakes is to expose failure; corrections, in this logic, diminish stature and authority rather than enhance them. . . . But this discussion should be about so much more than just errors and corrections. This is about new and better ways to gather, share, and verify news. And it is about a radically different and improved relationship between journalists and the public they serve. These changes in the culture and practice of journalism will not just bolster journalism's reputation but expand its reach and impact in society. | |
| Bruce Wilson: Christian Martyr Movement Head Blesses Huckabee & Gingrich | Top |
| On Friday, June 5, 2009, at an event featuring aspiring politicians Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich that was broadcast over the global media networks of GodTV, a rising leader in the rapidly reconfiguring Christian right who has publicly called for acts of Christian martyrdom prayed over and blessed Huckabee and Gingrich: TheCall founder Lou Engle. The June 5, 2009, Rock Church event has received some media notice but coverage -which has noted Newt Gingrich declared Americans are "surrounded by paganism" , and that he and Mike Huckabee made stump speeches calling for Christian conservatives to become more involved in electoral politics- has almost wholly missed the significance. Leaders on the Christian right have been giving such speeches for decades, but the two-day Rock Church conference was not business as usual. Rather, it showcased the rapid reconfiguration of the Christian right around the rising, highly militant but poorly understood charismatic wing of the new Christian right, a movement which includes both Ted Haggard and Sarah Palin .) One point of the spear for the new Christian right is an intense, raspy-voiced man who presided over the June 5, 2009 Rock Church event, layed hands on Mike Huckabee, and pledged the commitment of his prayer warriors to Huckabee and Gingrich was Lou Engle, founder of TheCall - which played a significant role in the push to pass the anti-gay marriage Proposition Eight in the lead up to the November 4, 2008 presidential election. Only days before Huckabee and Gingrich received Lou Engle's endorsement at Rock Church, on Sunday May 31, 2009, late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in the lobby of his Wichita, Kansas church. The next morning CBS's Jeff Glor reported, "We did speak with the accused shooters' ex-wife yesterday. She said she was not surprised this happened and that she believed Roeder wanted to be a martyr for the cause." The November 1, 2008 TheCall San Diego event was the capstone event for the pro-Proposition Eight, anti-gay marriage push in California prior to the November 4, 2008 presidential election. Towards the end of the event, which attracted an estimated 30,000 attendees to San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium despite sweltering heat, TheCall founder Lou Engle, and his disciple Eddie Brown, as captured in footage taken at TheCall San Diego by documentary film-maker Michael W. Wilson made calls, from onstage before thousands of impassioned followers, for acts of Christian martyrdom. Engle has in the recent past declared that decades of legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade have incurred a blood debt which demands to be paid in blood. [ more on Gingrich, Huckabee and Engle ] | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment