Kimberly Daniels

Moore Says This Is The End

2009-03-05T04:30:32Z

Supporters of Walter Moore and his slate candidates gathered on election night to await polling results and eat pie.

Moore set up the event at DuPar's at the L.A. Farmer's Market to thank his volunteers and supporters. He was hopeful for a victory in the mayoral race Tuesday.

]]> As the poll numbers were reported, Moore wrote the percentages on a white board. The first numbers - Moore 24%, Villaraigosa 54% - though still early in the process, predicted the election results.

City council, District 11, candidate Harry "Craig" Wilson smiled when he saw his name on the television despite incumbent Bill Rosendahl's 50-point lead.

"A lot of people don't like him and I just didn't want to see him go unopposed," Wilson said.

City attorney candidate David Berger was pleased with the results of his race.

"Of course I want to win. But my main goal was to help defeat Jack Weiss," Berger said of the apparent run-off between Weiss and Carmen Trutanich.

Kathleen "Suzy" Evans, candidate for city controller, lost to Wendy Greuel.

Moore and his slate ran a grass roots campaign fueled by little money, talk radio fans, and Internet supporters. Moore said he had no expectations of what would come of his campaign when he began running two years ago, but was happy and thankful for all the support.

When asked if he would run again, Moore replied that he definitely would not

"This is the end for me. I never wanted a career in politics, so next time I will be happy to write a big fat check to my favorite candidate," Moore said. "For the last two years, all my wife has seen of me at night is 'man-peering-at-laptop,' and she deserves so much more than that."

Despite his loss, Moore was all smiles.

Moore noted that his campaign had been visible with only one-tenth the money Villaraigosa spent. Moore said that he felt successful in that regard.

As the night went on, supporters cheered for Moore when more votes came in. They thanked him for running, took pictures, and got autographs. Moore thanked his supporters right back. For all their hard work, everyone deserved at least one extra helping of pie.

Breakfast Of (Hopeful) Champions

2009-03-05T04:21:03Z

How did the candidates spend election day?

City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss had his good-luck breakfast at Art's Delicatessan in Studio City. Weiss has had breakfast there the morning of every election day since he has been running for public office, and every time, he has won.

]]>
Weiss said he hoped people, especially students, showed up to vote. As for his opponents, Weiss considers their platforms divisive, extreme and ultimately ineffective.

"This is a progressive and forward-looking city, and when people bring the anger, they lose most people in L.A." Weiss said.

Art's is a popular spot for local politicians. City Controller candidate Wendy Gruell, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Weiss are frequent patrons.

Roberta Mitteldorf, manager of the deli and Art's daughter, said she supported Weiss and other candidates who frequent the restaurant because they have been heavily involved with the community and she feels they are good at their jobs.

Her father Art, founder of the restaurant, has always been involved in local politics. As a result, the restaurant is a place where local politicians occasionally hang out.

The staff and some patrons tend to be part of the voting population in Los Angeles as well.

"It's a great city and the more people who participate, the more hopeful I am," Weiss said.

Cheering 'Crabby Alternatives' At Election-Eve Rally

2009-03-05T03:52:38Z

A crowd of about 200 gathered to cheer on the "crabby alternatives" on today's ballot at an election-eve rally at a hotel near Los Angeles International Airport last night. The rally-goers, who "booed" and jeered "mainstream candidates" such as incumbent Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Attorney hopeful Jack Weiss, gathered to listen to their candidates' final pitches for office.

]]> The "Pitch Fork and Torches Tour" was hosted by KABC radio personality Doug McIntyre. McIntyre and his co-host John Phillips wore overalls and decorated the stage with pitchforks in a metaphorical display of what they called a "peasant uprising." Behind them, the original "Frankenstein" played on the screen, displaying images of angry mobs of villagers storming Frankenstein's castle with pitchforks and torches.

"This is all about the vote, vote, vote, ..." McIntyre said, inspiring a chant from the crowd.

Walter Moore, the mayoral candidate who is expected to come in second to Villaraigosa, appeared confident about today's election. He said the amount of money raised worked to his advantage as "the enemy has radar that only picks up on candidates that are covered in money." As a result, Moore said, Internet and talk radio supporters who have gone largely unnoticed could cause an upset in the polls.

"We have the cross section of a sparrow but we're gonna be a big squadron of B-2 bombers tomorrow on election day." Moore said.

Moore's tone reflected the mood of those who gathered at the event: hopeful and energetic about ousting the incumbents from office.

Moore said he expects to take 60 percent of the vote on election day.

Candidates David "Zuma Dogg" Saltsburg, David Hernandez, Craig X Rubin, Phil Jennerjahn, James Harris, Bruce Darian, Gordon Turner, Carlos Alvarez, Michael American, David Berger, Carmen Trutanich, Noel Weiss, Suzy Evans and Nick Patsaouras also appeared at the event.

Los Angeles City Council Rejects Philip Morris Donation

2008-11-18T07:34:57Z

10.24.2008

After a lengthy discussion about taking money from a tobacco company, the Los Angeles City Council voted 6 to 4 Friday to reject a $10,000 donation from Philip Morris that was intended to fund enforcement against the illegal street sales of tobacco products.
   An official from the Bureau of Street Services explained that the city has had problems with the illegal street vending of single cigarettes. The donated money would go to help fund the law enforcement required to stop such illegal sales.

]]>    Other council members and members of the public said the city should not take money from a company whose product is responsible for the diseases and deaths of so many of its users. Representatives of various health and anti-smoking organizations argued that the city's acceptance of the money would be seen as an endorsement of tobacco use.
   The city has taken money from tobacco and alcohol companies in the past. After the Los Angeles Police Department requested the moneys in 2007, the city accepted a $50,000 donation from Philip Morris to help pay for an investigation into counterfeit cigarettes.
    Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who negotiated the donation, said he was surprised at the council's reluctance to accept the money.
   The state is in a serious financial crisis and the city needs money to run its programs, Rosendahl said.
   "Ten thousand dollars could hardly be considered enough money to put other companies out of business," said Rosendahl. "But what you're doing now is creating a precedent, a precedent to scrutinize every donation we receive from here on out."
   The small group who had spoken out against accepting the donation shook their heads vigorously as Rosendahl spoke.
   Councilmembers Alarcon, Wendy Greuel and Tom LaBonge disagreed with Rosendahl, insisting that the City of Los Angeles could not be seen as a city that was supported by the "blood money" of tobacco sales.
   Some council members made the suggestion to table the issue until the next meeting.
    However, Rosendahl relented, saying that it made no sense to waste more time over such a small amount of money.
    Councilmembers Alarcon, Greuel, and LaBonge along with three others voted to reject the donation.
    After the discussion, LaBonge walked over to the group who had spoken out against taking the money.
"Now that that's over," said LaBonge, smiling, "how do we get rid of those cigar companies?"

A Few Days Before The Election

2008-11-10T14:22:56Z

Proposition 8 was one of the most contentious voter issues on the California ballot. A 'Yes' on 8 vote supported a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, eliminating the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Opponents argued this is a civil rights issue that should not be put to a vote.

At the time of the election, it was legal for same-sex couples to marry in California.

Music by Marvin Gaye - A protest song for a Pershing Square protest.

Obama v. McCain, the Second Round

2008-10-12T15:16:33Z

     It has been how many months, so many websites, two debates, and I still don't fully understand what either candidate's health care plan entails. (McCain keeps throwing around this $5000 number - when I'm pretty sure his website says $2500 per person, while at the same time quoting the cost of $12 thousand a year per family. But, how will this money help me pay for health care if I'm one of the many Americans that only qualifies for $300 + /per month health insurance? Where is this money coming from? What about the issue of non-coverage for pre-conditions? Why is it so difficult to derive the plan from a website that purports to explain it? Did I just follow the wrong click? is it user error?) Why can't they just tell us the truth, plain and simple. Just tell the truth, as they see it individually; they are the only two options, so we'd have to vote for one of them...
     America is a large country with a diverse population and every element of life that is needed to create a well-rounded and prosperous existence. But, with only two viable political parties in this vast nation of ours, the diversity that our country breeds is dealt with through vague language and policies that can extend a wide canopy over the thoughts and beliefs of many.

]]> And so, in the great tradition of free speech, I will air my own desires for the kind of candidate I would really like to see; one that bucks the system and ignores the status quo.

Soundslide: Skid Row 3-on-3 Basketball League

2008-10-05T14:35:31Z

Every Saturday morning, Skid Row community members get together for a game of bball. "Everybody has something, could be a mental illness, or a drug addiction, attitude problems, whatever... you got to leave that out and get right. That is what this league is about... learning how to get right." Ol' G - League organizer

McCain v. Obama, the first match : more of the same.

2008-09-28T13:26:43Z

Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect a U.S. presidential debate to deal substantively - and honestly - with wrongful actions by the American government, even at the end of George W. Bush's eight-year reign as one of the planet's preeminent rogue operatives.

Considering the extreme state of the U.S. today - failing economy, credit crisis, housing bust, high unemployment rates, "the war on terror," and a very unpopular Iraq war - I, for one, expected fireworks from the first debate between McCain and Obama. Instead, we got some solid debating, some shaky debating, some good presidential-like moments, and some petty ones; all in all, there were no terribly memorable moments or much very straight forward explanation of how they would change current policy. The news media seemed to agree, publishing quite a few articles that echoed the following :
"At that debate, against the backdrop of the economic crisis, neither candidate scored significantly or caused much damage to the other. But the differences between the two were evident on issues ranging from federal spending to diplomacy with rogue nations."]]>

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, gave his own opinion on his performance Friday night. Speaking to Representative Charles W. Pickering Jr., Republican of Mississippi, he was recorded by a television crew as saying, "I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie, but I think that means when they call it a tie that means we win."

       However, from the point of view of the audience, the news media seems to have the collective opinion that neither candidate came out a prominent shining star but both had their moments. Many editorials echoed the notion that the debate was too-close-to-call
and that, due to the poor showing of McCain's campaign last week, he did well to surprise the audience with a tough performance, "Though McCain's stab at becoming the hero of the economic crisis blew up, some of the damage may have been mitigated by his solid debate performance," Among the traditional news media, this seemed to be the consensus. There was simply no clear winner.
       Perhaps the event on par with the debate was the frenzy of punditry spin that followed. Flipping through the cable channels projected on the large white screen of the media room that had been reserved for the purposes of debate partying, CNN, MSNBC, and FOXnews played the parts we all expected.
   One event of notice that I did not anticipate becoming a talking point was the fact that Obama said, during the debate, that he agreed with Senator McCain on a few points, even praising him for being tough on torture. Though it was generally only mentioned in written news articles and discussed much more by television pundits, what seemed - to me - to be Obama's cordiality was criticized for being a sign of weakness. The McCain campaign has even used it against Obama.

Obama was compared to other debaters such as Gore who, after being criticized for seeming too disagreeable, made it a point to agree with Bush a few times in one of the 2000 debates.
   Personally, my head is beginning to spin at the proof positive that it is impossible to get elected without being a populist. Certainly, there are times when two opposing candidates can agree on something: the safety of the country, that torture should not be allowed by the American government, that the world should agree to nuclear non-proliferation... And the statement of agreement would not be criticized as bowing to the "enemy."
   I have not seem that many elections during my short years of being politically conscious; this one is certainly the most important to me (though I must say, I hung my head with shame when G.W. Bush was elected, and cried a little when he was elected again - especially in light of the tragedy that was the beginning of the Iraq war). But I hear they always turn in to boxing matches.
   What's the point though? If people truly make their decisions based on party loyalty, and the fact that we only have two political parties, why have campaigning at all. Just campaign to the undecideds - and leave the decision up to them. These limits of acceptability when it comes to political parties are like a Christian and an Aethiest arguing about the existence of a god: they are simply fundamental differences in perspective that will never be made the same. (Some people think its great to shoot wolves from hovering helicopters, I think its appalling - and I don't think I will ever change my mind about that nor can I begin to understand the mindset that lets some people think its okay.) So what is the point of getting so nasty? What is the point of lying, or exagerrating? Or picking apart words in sentences?
   There is so much coverage out there and everyone seems to have a distinguished opinion - life seems like it should be much more simple. Aim to do what's good for everyone, recognizing that everyone has a different idea about what's good. Just at least admit that! But, I digress.
   If the media has anything to do with it, the next debates should be much better. The one thing that McCain and Obama can rely on is the media spin on public opinion; the research is right there on TV, telling the candidates what to do. Candidates, take a lesson from all those youtube clips or the video section of MSNBC, or FoxNews, and figure it out! People want straight talk, they want clear stances, and they want to see solid leadership - and apparently, they don't want to see Obama and McCain agreeing with each other; in this age of instant access, reaching the consensus doesn't get any easier. McCain and Obama just have to make sure that they hire smart kids to get through all that info.

Swimming in Info.

2008-09-21T14:37:50Z

I have not been a big consumer of blogs. I generally stuck to "legacy media" because there is simply so much information on the web. I have never felt like I had the time to properly vet writers or bloggers that hadn't already been put forward as reputable through well-known news sources.
     Its not to say that citizen journalists/bloggers/etc. don't have anything good to say. On the contrary, I think that the dialogue that has been provided with the ease of publishing on the web is fantastic. People should be able to participate in news. I'm just not the one that will always follow the threads or care to see what specific bloggers think of this or that event. When I'm looking for news, I want news - not opinion.

     Of course, opinion is far from absent in legacy media news sources as well. Some writers are given permission to use loaded words or pick unfair images. One of my favorite instances of obvious bias was in the New York paper, I believe it was The Post, in 2000. The paper ran side by side articles that profiled Bush and Gore. The photographs of Gore were all very sophisticated, with dramatic and flattering light. The photographs of Bush, specifically one of him sat spread eagle on the grass next to his father who was sitting in a chair, made him look like a foolish man-child. It was not the most presidential-looking picture. And it was a not so subtle way to editorialize Bush's bio. It seemed quite obvious to me that the paper preferred Gore; however, maybe some considered it fair and equal. Maybe they should not have been allowed to print those pictures while claiming to be fair and balanced journalists. Maybe that bias should have been transparently identified.
     I've been taught to always question everything. Even those sources you like. An important part of consuming information is to be critical of it. So it comes as no surprise that sites would be created to aide one's critical eye. Spinspotter.com and Newstrust.net set out to do exactly that: help the reader cut through the ... bad stuff.

]]>
    Spinspotter allows the reader to highlight elements of a story that are on the list of the "Seven Deadly Spins." These include reporter's voice, passive voice, biased source, disregarded context, selective disclosure, lack of balance, and over-reliance on press releases. These are spins that have been identified by Spinspotter's own journalism advisory board.
     The ultimate goal behind Spinspotter may be to threaten writers on a more personal level. By marking up their articles with red highlighter, perhaps the writers will become more vigilant about the fairness of their own news reporting.
     However, and perhaps we can blame this on the beta version, Spinspotter is easy to criticize based on first use. For one, it runs in to the same problems that it was created to identify: bias. Spinspotter relies on the user to identify spin according to the rules set out on the program's website. The program expects the user to be an expert in identifying these elements, and then feeds the information to an algorithm that will become more efficient about identifying the elements on its own. But who will edit the elements that have been identified?
     In one article, the word "loquacious" was identified as spin when it was used to describe Senator Biden. In the next sentence, "Mr. McCain" was identified as spin because the user considered it an improper reference. The perceived meaning of the use of the word loaquacious seems to be defined by the writer's own bias. Indeed, in thebiden.tiff Spinspotter notes, the user writes "Synonyms: babbling, chattering, gabby, garrulous, jabbering, noisy, talkative, voluble, wordy I guess it was the prettiest "sounding" word for what he[Biden] is." This relates the user's own opinion; the words "gregarious," or "verbose" were not considered (and I think they are pretty words). The user surmises that the writer would like to sugar coat the criticism of Sen. Biden by using a "pretty word" to describe his talkative nature. However, there is no evidence in the article to support this point.
   The second element that the user identified - Mr. McCain should be referred to as Sen. McCain - is also revealing of the user's bias because the article merely adheres to AP standards, and addresses all the other people mentioned in the same pattern. It is not evidence of disrespect or bias at all.
        Newstrust.net falls victim to the same problems. Rather than users identifying articles of strong journalistic merit and articles of weak journalistic merit, they seem to rank articles depending on whether or not they like the information in them. The user Roland Hirsch, for example, criticizes every article that questions the McCain campaign and praises every article that is critical of the Obama campaign. His review choices reflects a list of articles that he likes or dislikes rather than engaging in a serious discussion of whether or not an article provides fair and balanced journalism. A majority of users, it seems from my less than thorough survey of the site, are biased the other direction.
       However, there are users that focus on whether or not the attributions in an article are thorough and accurate. In that sense, the site could serve more as a fact checker to make sure that journalists are not simply lying or making things up in their pieces.
Both sites fall victim to the same plight: how do we expect ordinary users to be fair and balanced, and have the expertise, to identify the subtleties of bias in articles written by professional journalists. Much like the question of the validity of citizen journalists, do we really want citizen editors? The average person does not study semantics at the level even of a college freshman course, much less to the degree that a journalist should be sensitive to the use of certain words.
   Newstrust.net seems to be a little more useful, as it is more of a favorites list compiled by users; much like emailing articles to your friends. The ratings of these articles may be a helpful addition to the discussion bias in the media. That brings me to the question as to why these sites would be useful in the first place. Is the average news consumer so easily swayed by a writer's lullaby of indoctrination (if it truly is the case that the writer is trying to indoctrinate)? Do readers not trust real editors to require fair and balanced reporting when an institution claims to be dedicated to such things?
   Personally, if I'm not in the mood for an opinion piece, I just won't read them. I view articles with a critical eye and try to be fair and balanced in my opinion that is informed by the information I have just read. If I'm in the mood for punditry, or a call to rally the troops, I know who my preachers are and I would never be silly enough to think those sources were objective. I generally rely on myself to be my own spinspotter.
   Perhaps I am not enough of a visionary to figure out how these two sites will be usefully implemented in the future ( though I have much more confidence in NewsTrust.net); but as of right now, I can't imagine ever thinking about visiting the sites again. There is enough information to sort through -- those sites just clutter the pages even more.

Spinning.

2008-09-14T15:27:05Z

It's as if criticism of the media is a rule in the campaign play book. It is a very clever maneuver from those who stand to gain from discrediting the media (and what does that say about a campaign). If ALL news outlets are inherently wrong, then a critical voice or a question as to truth is just a part of a smear campaign. This is how it seems the Republicans would like their supporters to feel. In the eyes of McCain/Palin supporters, the media can do no right.

]]> As a citizen, I feel as if my head is spinning in a question of doubt and a flurry of emotion. The attacks on the media by the McCain/Palin campaign seem unreasonable and silly. The charge that the news has been sexist, and unfair, that "ABC News Hid Important Parts of Palin Interview" has been repeated enough to get me questioning myself: am I so biased that I cannot distinguish what I consider coverage, from attack? Or am I just oversaturated? The past two weeks have been not much more than a flurry of Palin coverage. I feel as if we are all up to our eyeballs in news about her. I do feel as if most of the articles have been critical of her rather than promotional of the positive effects she has had as mayor and governor. However, maybe my personal feelings have affected the articles that I choose to read and remember.

In an article tracking the coverage of one day of Biden vs. Palin, Bad Impression: Did the Media Take Swipes at Sarah Palin? by Fox News reporter John Lott, Jr., tracks the coverage of both candidates based on the terms by which they are identified.

For Biden, the top ten terms found were: experience (excluding "executive experience") (69 percent), abortion (21 percent), liberal (11 percent), safe (7 percent), long-winded (5 percent), moderate (5 percent), plagiarism (3 percent), gun-control (2 percent), executive experience (2 percent), and exaggerate or exaggerated (dealing with exaggerated claims he made about his college grades and
accomplishments that helped end his 1988 race) (1 percent).

For Palin, the top ten were: conservative (49 percent), abortion (44 percent), brother-in-law (picking up claims that she improperly tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired) (17 percent), corruption and oil (17 percent), risky or risks or risk (16 percent), glass ceiling (13 percent), Quayle (10 percent), exciting (9 percent), inexperience or "lack experience" OR "limited experience" (8 percent), and bold (8 percent).

He concludes,

One day's media coverage hardly makes a whole campaign, and it would be interesting to see if these patterns continue, but first impressions do matter. Whatever the reasons, initial media coverage of Sarah Palin was significantly less positive than the coverage for Joe Biden.

Personally, I don't agree with his conclusion, but the article does bring up a good point. Are reporters using more negative terminology to critique Palin? Are the media the ones who are driving the intense scrutiny of Palin while giving Biden a bit of a free pass? Or is the fact that Biden's history has been on the table for so many years mean that he is not as newsworthy as someone who is brand new?

My question is, why is Palin not available to refute or explain these stories? If Palin is not available to speak to the country, where should the public's information come from?

However, this spin tactic of attacking the media has worked even to defend her from public appearances. In her first press interview with Charlie Gibson last week, it has been reported that The McCain campaign dismissed any Palin missteps in the interviews as being the result of attempted sandbagging by the media.(Tom Shales, Washington Post) In a New York Times article about the interview,

What is it that the media can do to prove that they are treating Palin fairly. Both the O'reilly and Stephanopoulis interviews with Obama seemed much more hard hitting and critical than anything that came up in the Palin interview, "Palin Reviews Are In, and Gibson Got an ..."
Steinberg points out the views that pundits and bloggers have expressed: Gibson was respectful vs. Gibson was sneaky and unreasonable. Of course, what could Gibson have done to make critics happy other than not push Palin when his questions were not answered directly.

If attacking the media is a campaign tactic, is there really a way to combat this sense? In a way, it doesn't matter whether or not the bias is true because any criticism of Sarah Palin will be met with criticism of the media. The only way to end this battle would be to remove the news forum from the discussion. Pehaps we should bend to John Stewarts' suggestion that even the mention of her name is "sexist." It just all seems, well, not fair. However, this is the reality of how the race is being run. It is my hope that the voters see through it and hold out for real discussion of the issues when, hopefully, we will see Palin speak for herself without criticism of the media guide that could be accused of unfairly leading the conversation.

This spin about a biased media is unrelenting and at times infuriariating. It seems that such vehement accusations should be saved for times when attacks are truly warranted. However, at this time, its a tactic that seems it may be working. And, as much as I hate to say it, unfair as it is, attacking the media may be a method that - in a fight - will be proven to have been smart.

Neutrality and Transparency, are they mutually exclusive?

2008-09-07T14:49:51Z

Can a reporter (or citizen journalist) use transparency to forgo neutrality? Does the appearance of neutrality negate the need for transparency? In the example of Mayhill Fowler, the questions her story provokes are not only of neutrality and transparency in reporting, but the implications of those in access to stories and the rules by which citizen journalists may or may not abide. Even more confusing in this specific story, as Michael Tomasky noted, according to the rules of transparency and neutrality, a traditional reporter would never have had access to the private function such as the one Fowler wrote about. In this case, the lack of access would have had more to do with neutrality: reporters are not supposed to make donations to campaigns which, in turn, means that they are not invited to private donor dinners.

]]>
Here is a woman that supports Obama, so much as to donate a considerable amount of money to the campaign, who hears something that sounds a little suspect, and decides to widen the audience to those comments. Sounds like fair journalism to me. (I know that all these observations have been made in this weeks' articles, however, I'm repeating for the purpose of context rather than to state them as my own ideas.)

The issue with the story seems to be that she broke the rules that professional journalists have always assumed they had to keep. The criticism comes from the game players that cried, "Wait! I thought you couldn't do that!" The bottom line is that the Obama camp has confirmed that speech was not off the record. They are not criticizing Fowler for making her observations public, nor for the way in which she had access to the speech. (Of course, that decision is probably political in its own right, but it seems to be the correct one.)

So, Fowler seems to be an example of a new trend: to be transparent and neutral. However, is this really new? In my current history of media class, we had a discussion about the fact that in the past, it was common for papers to disclose their bias and report the news in that known context. In England, the public and press are much more upfront with the slant that a paper takes. Perhaps this idea of "neutrality" in the American press serves more to attract a wider audience than it does to prevent its reporters from unknowingly exposing their personal bias. After all, in things like elections, reporters are only human and, even though they may not talk about it, will probably decide that they agree with one person more than another.

It seems that the question then turns to agenda. If reporters are allowed to be transparent with their opinions, how do you prevent them from reporting the news without forwarding an agenda? Is the burden on the reader to decide what the reporting means? Or can we trust reporters to be neutral in light of their proffered transparency? Or does it simply depend on the story? Of "All the News That's Fit to Print," neutrality can't be completely upheld because choices have to be made as to a priority of importance. Is that not a form of injecting opinion?

Good reporters do have the ability to be transparent and neutral. Fowler is a great example of this ability to be a critic and a fan. It would seem that this is the kind of journalism we should expect and that should be respected. This is the truth finding and honest keeping work that would hopefully help to keep everyone, in their own respect, transparent.

note: just wanted to share a site that i saw which pulls headlines from news sources and compares them to each other. the attempt is to see if the same stories are reported with a different bias http://www.reportingwars.com/ )

Who is Introducing Sarah Palin... and to Whom?

2008-08-31T16:15:04Z

Directly following the conclusion of this week's Democratic National Convention, John McCain announced first term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. In what many have called a surprise choice, this selection has been an obvious cause for a new national discussion and debate. From headlines such as "McCain changes the equation," a Saturday morning Los Angeles Times news article reporting the choice, to "Sarah Palin -- Alaska Gov, McCain's VP Pick, Kind of a Babe," an article posted Friday on Asylum.com discussing the governor's "hotness" and declaring her a "MILF," today's news media - legacy and otherwise - has reported on this announcement from nearly every angle this story provokes.

]]> McCain's VP choice is particularly controversial because Palin is relatively unknown to the American public. How, critics question, can McCain choose a stranger to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

One answer that has been surmised is that Palin was McCain's answer to the popularity of Hillary Clinton. Given that some die-hard Clinton supporters have turned their bitterness over Clinton's loss in to refusing to support Obama, perhaps Palin was chosen to lure Clinton supporters to the GOP bid.

A Google search of "Palin vs. Clinton" returns pages of links to legacy media articles, you tube clips, and blog posts. The only thing that, on the surface, seems to distinguish these sources is the familiarity of the name of the news institution and the trust that is associated with those names.

When reading "Can You Cross Out 'Hillary' and Write 'Sarah'?" by Kate Zernike of the New York Times, one is confronted with a fairly balanced inquiry as to whether or not Palin appeals to the same women that Clinton won over. The article does not conclude with a definitive answer to this question; rather, it finds that, regardless of political leanings, women are a significant demographic in this election and the choice of Palin acknowledges that fact.

In an agenda transparent blog, Feministing.com, a post by a blogger called "Ann" is much more opinionated in her comparison of Palin and Clinton. Ann states that McCain's choice is a "ploy to snag the votes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters." The author then goes on to say that although she is happy that Republicans have chosen a woman for the ticket, gender is only a small factor in the decision and that "quite frankly, Palin's political views suck."

A consumer, such as myself, would not expect such blatantly biased criticism from the traditional news media unless one were reading op ed pieces. However, using words like "suck" or declaring that Palin is a "MILF," probably wouldn't be mentioned even in editorials of legacy media outlets. As a result of my expectation, I would not consider Feministing.com, or Asylum.com, a reliable news source.

It seems that more traditional news sources adhere to certain standards and practices that are identified as aspects of proper journalism. In the context of the traditional, ranting on a topic or discussing an issue like "hotness" is reserved for reactionary amateurs who have now been given a voice through distribution on the Internet. This idea of "proper journalism" limits the forum in which people are considered professionals to those that would be willing to stick to the time honored news writing protocol. However, does use of a more vernacular approach to article writing or opinion posting declare that a reporter is an amateur? And how much of the definition of "professional journalist" lay in the readers' expectations of story presentation? Or, is the title "professional journalist" awarded to those who get paid to commit journalism?

After all, what is the difference between outspoken blog posts and articles written for magazines like Mother Jones? At times, it seems the only difference is paper and production quality.

Of course, the implication of getting paid to commit journalism is that a reporter is expected to be a kind of expert on a topic. A reporter feeds his family by learning all there is to know about a subject and then parlaying that education to the public who doesn't have time to become an expert because they are busy feeding their families by doing something else. In that sense, one would hope that a professional journalist would be, simply, more reliable. The "mass amateurization of publishing" is good for mainly two things: sharing opinions and creating group actions. Well, three things: entertainment as well. Amateur media has not yet replaced the traditional news source; and, in my humble opinion, it probably never will.

However, at this point we are still grappling with definitions. The lines are hardly unmistakable in all situations. The new business model has yet to be decided. At that point, maybe, we will have a clearer view.

The Wide World of Journalism... and what I intend to do in it

2008-08-25T23:35:52Z

I have many ideas about what it is that I will do in the world of journalism - so I'll share the one that seems the most far-fetched and delusional. I would like to start a production company that uses the profits generated by commercial ventures to properly fund and provide resources for documentary projects that I find interesting. I know that this is not a new model, but I would like to improve it and dictate the content on which the company would focus. As far as commercial ventures are concerned, I envision television series that could be considered "info-tainment;" supplemental educational materials that help to illustrate generally elusive topics such as history and math to jr. high and high school students; creating series that promote awareness on life-skills topics such as financial literacy or career choices/development; human interest series that explore the reasoning behind all sides of ongoing social arguments like bilingual education, immigration, and reproductive rights; and lots of "talking heads" history documentaries. I guess, I could say, I want to create a life scenario in which I can explore whatever the hell I want to explore, and produce some kind of documentary/article/series about it. And get paid for it. Therefore, the production company pipe dream.

While I'm working towards that, however, in the world of journalism, I'd imagine I will try to work for a news magazine type program in which I continue to practice the skills of researching, compiling, assembling, and disseminating information.

I'm finally in grad school... diary to myself

2008-08-25T23:08:21Z

The decision to come to graduate school was one I have been mulling over for the past couple years. I knew that this level of education was, simply, an experience I wanted out of life. However, when considering a career to which I would be willing to wholly dedicate my time, and one that graduate school would help to facilitate, there were so many factors to consider. I continue to have one unwavering goal: I want to be in the position to help people. Somehow. (I won't go in to the details of why that statement isn't as hokey or idealistic as it sounds. It is just a basic desire I must address.) But when I considered my other requirements: salary, job satisfaction, location, potential co-workers, opportunities to travel, appealing to my own passions, to name a few, I found it difficult to prioritize.
]]>
Though a career in law does have the potential to be fulfilling, I think I've found my niche. I'm a bit ecstatic about the fact that I'm sitting in the Annenberg lobby right now. I can rationalize all the passions and the pipe dreams that I had been too wary to indulge; not because I needed Annenberg to accomplish those dreams, but because entering this program was my way of committing to those dreams. So now, I'm here to learn and practice. And I'm so genuinely happy about that.

Managing Skid Row - the Problem of Homelessness in Los Angeles

2008-08-25T07:39:36Z

When I was a kid, my father drove me through Skid Row a couple times. I have memories of dusty blocks of empty lots protected by barbed wire laden chain link fences. Butting up against those fences were tents erected by rows and rows of urban campers hanging out on sidewalks in the middle of the day. I don't remember trees, I don't remember toilets; I just remember thinking: how do so many people live here?

]]>
Walking around Skid Row now, the picture in my mind is a little less stark. For one, the homeless population has decreased. Skid Row seems to have become less a result of a directed policy of containment, and more a byproduct of centralized services for the homeless community. As a student group, we were able to meet with three of the prominent agencies in Skid Row that have taken up the charge of addressing and ameliorating this problem of homelessness.

The Union Rescue Mission, on San Pedro and Sixth, is a faith based non-profit organization that directly serves the community in which it is located. They provide free meals, free and open space that people can use as a refuge from the streets, beds for those homeless folks that are lucky enough to secure a spot, and medical services. On hot days, Rev. Andy Bales leads a water walk to hand out hundreds of bottles of water to people on the streets. The Mission also runs programs for those men and women that would like to get off of the streets and are dedicated to changing their own lives. The Mission's unwavering message of hope, dedication to helping anyone in need, and consistent faith in people has contributed to the improvement of conditions on Skid Row.

In recent years, the Safer City Initiative has promoted more thorough cooperation between organizations such as the Union Rescue Mission, and the Central Division Police Department. While visiting the Central Police Station, we spoke to Lt. Richard Thomas who is the officer in charge of the Safer City Initiative Task Force. He talked about the task force's role in "enforcement, enhancement, and outreach" to people who are living on the streets; and the multifaceted and multilayered approach that we must use to decrease the number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles. The law enforcement agencies have changed their policies from being strict and unbending to adopting tactics that call for more realistic solutions when policing the streets of Skid Row. For example, a new pilot program called "SOS" (Streets or Services) allows law violators to "pay" fines in an individually developed social service rather than go through the traditional court system. The social service punishment is geared towards rehabilitating that individual from the situation that led them to violate the law. Many programs such as these are being embraced in an effort to eradicate homelessness in LA.

The third agency we visited was the Central City East Association in charge of the proximal Business Improvement Districts. The executive director, Estella Lopez, spoke with us about conducting business in an area where homeless individuals are prevalent.
Her agency is, first and foremost, charged with maintenance, security, awareness, and business advocacy for the area. However, as the nature of the area is to contain a large homeless population, this is a topic she deals with everyday. Some of the results of homelessness on businesses are very simple: employees can't take breaks on the sidewalk because of the health risks resulting from urination and defecation; urine eats at metal security doors and, as a result, they must be replaced often; many food businesses have to pay higher costs to maintain the proper levels of sanitation; businesses must pay higher wages, have more security, and require more maintenance to operate in and around Skid Row. As Ms. Lopez illustrated, Skid Row is not a place in which it is easy for businesses to thrive. In turn, Ms. Lopez's interest in decreasing the homeless population is not only emotional but also economic.

It seems that this problem of homelessness cannot be effectively addressed without involving these various parties. To eradicate homelessness is to address the cause of the issue and help individuals rather than punish those engaged in this socially unacceptable activity. However, it seems, when things are rough, they are rough in extremes. Living on the street provides for so many situations in which misery appears inescapable.

This tour was one that exposed me to a lot of new information regarding the current management and history of the policies of management towards homeless populations in LA. It is a subject that I would like to investigate further and for which I would like to help to create more awareness.

I am especially interested in the history of decisions made with regard to policies on homelessness, and the motivations for the evolution of care that is provided to the homeless populations, specifically those on Skid Row.