Category: politics

Posted on

Political Ads: Stimulus for Local TV Stations

Political advertising is finally coming to a close in most markets and you can hear the collective sigh of relief from nearly everyone. Everyone that is except for local TV stations who have been raking in the dough as candidates have spent a reported record $3 BILLION! Most of that money has been going to local TV buys and for most local stations the revenue has been just what they’ve needed to counter the hard-hitting recession. Besides major sporting events, e.g. Olympic games, Superbowls, World Series and college sporting events, political ads are a regular boost to TV stations’ budgets. But these are not always a sure deal. Just ask Fox who had the rights to the World Series this year. The  short series left a lot of advertising revenue on the table.

There are several reasons why so much money has changed hands. First, there were a lot of hotly contested races between Republican, Tea Party, Democratic and Independent candidates. Second, there was an influx of money from outside organizations such as labor unions and corporations. Just this past Spring a Supreme Court ruling (Citizen’s United v FEC) opened the door to more spending from outside interest groups. And third, there seem to be more and more candidates who self-finance their races. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, spent a reported $142 M of her own money.

In the end it all adds up to a big paycheck for TV stations around the country…including Colorado where the Senate race between Bennet and Buck is too close to call. So when you turn on the TV tomorrow, just think of all the TV station owners and managers who may be shedding a tear or two that the political spots are gone…at least for the next 18 months or so.

Posted on

Supreme Court Wrestles with Despicable Speech

We all know that most speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. There are a few exception, e.g., obscenity, defamation (libel and slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. But the general consensus is that the First Amendment also protects crazy and hateful ideas like those espoused by Fred Phelps, who, with his small group of followers, pickets military funerals and spews hateful rhetoric about military deaths being divine retribution for America’s tolerance of gays.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the father of a slain soldier is asking the Supreme Court to rule against Phelps and speech that includes the waving signs outside the funerals  of a fallen serviceman that proclaim, “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

The road to the Supreme Court involved decisions both for and against Phelps.
Snyder sued Phelps and his followers for “defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Snyder was awarded nearly $11M in damages in the original court case. Phelps appealed and the damages were reduced to $5M. Then a federal appellate court overturned the decision, thus setting up the battle in the Supreme Court.

Support for the families of fallen soldiers is widespread among veterans groups. Also, politicians from both the right and the left have spoken out in favor of a ruling that would restrict this sort of speech. However, there are plenty of folks, e.g., the ACLU and most media companies, on the other side of the issue who are holding their noses while voicing support for a decision that would allow Phelps and his followers to continue their antics.

Whose side are YOU on?

Posted on

Mocking the legislative process, or just having a little fun?

Fake news shows on Comedy Central, e.g. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, have a history of poking fun at news-makers, politicians, the media, and the whole news-as-entertainment phenomenon. But when Stephen Colbert testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law yesterday, some saw it as mockery of an institution that should be above the cheap laughs and clever word-play that are standard fare for comedians.

Colbert, who stayed in character for his entire testimony, spoke about the difficult working conditions that migrant farm workers endure. Allegedly Colbert testified from personal experience after spending a day working in the fields beside migrant workers. But with his typical dead-pan delivery of a script that was clearly more about laughs than substance, few in the room seemed prepared to take his testimony seriously. You can watch a news clip of his testimony here.

This led some critics to call the appearance, “a huge waste of taxpayer time and money” and others to call it an embarrassment. But apparently this is not the first time that a committee hearing featured an entertainer who was invited to entertain. Sesame Street‘s Elmo excepted, most celebrity witnesses testify from an area of expertise. What do you think? Does one day in a bean field give Colbert the kind of credibility necessary for an appearance on Capitol Hill?

Posted on

Book Burning, the 1st Amendment, and Global Media

In case you haven’t heard, a pastor of a small church in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Qur’an on Saturday, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The thing that makes this isolated incident the focus of our attention is that media attention is turning this into a global news story that will be seen by millions of Muslims around the world. And what they see will likely inflame passionate anger directed at the US. The Qur’an is a book, and books are a form of media. So in one sense this is a media story about media coverage of an act that involves the desecration of a media artifact.

Burning patriotic or religious symbols is nothing new. Flags and effigies of heads-of-state are commonly burned to send strong messages of disapproval to the “other side.” In America, the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech specifically protects these kinds of political acts and we have a long history of protecting speech that is highly offensive. And while no one is debating the “right” of this pastor and his congregants to burn the Qur’an, many are critical of his decision to do something that will be seen as an extremely offensive act to millions of Muslims around the world. Much like the discussion of the mosque proposed for construction near Ground Zero, the right to proceed is not  in question, but the appropriateness of the act certainly is. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and General Petraeus have publicly condemned the proposed burning and have asked the pastor to reconsider. General Petraeus went to far as to say that the burning will endanger the lives of US soldiers in Afghanistan.

Book burning has a long and sordid history of its own…but to fully understand the gravity of this situation one needs to understand the esteem that Muslims have for  their sacred scripture. In 2005 a firestorm of controversy erupted in Muslim countries when it was reported that a copy of the Qur’an was flushed down a toilet in the process of interrogating an enemy combatant at Gitmo. While the Pentagon has been unable to find credible evidence that the desecration took place, the response was rioting that led to many deaths. If the book burning takes place this Saturday, the response may make the 2005 riots look like child’s play.

Of course, without media coverage this isolated incident would happen in a vacuum. Just like a tree falling in an empty forest, the silence would be deafening. But that is not the case in a world of 24/7 news coverage with instantaneous global reach. Secretary of State Clinton asked the media to deny coverage as an act of patriotism, but she knows that won’t happen. The Associated Press quoted Secretary Clinton as saying,

“It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distrustful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now,” Clinton said. “It is unfortunate, it is not who we are.”

So what do you think? Is this a case where the 1st Amendment goes too far, protecting speech that does not deserve protection? Or is this the very essence of the kind of political protest that the Founding Fathers so passionately intended to protect?

Posted on

Which mess is bigger…the oil spill or the government’s response?

More than five weeks after the April 20th explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that started it, the BP oil spill has eclipsed the size of the catastrophe known as the Exxon Valdez. Today we learned that the ‘top-kill’ procedure has failed, and that thousands of gallons of oil continue daily to add to the 18-40 million gallons of oil already fouling the gulf and the delicate marshes that line the coast of Louisiana. Some of this oil may make its way into the currents that will carry it around the Florida keys and up the east coast of the US. While that may take weeks or months, the mess has already reached Washington D.C.

In an effort to demonstrate that he is in control, President Obama made a three-hour visit to the region yesterday before heading off on his holiday trip to Chicago. Critics of the president note that he is skipping the traditional Memorial Day celebration at Arlington cemetery while taking his second vacation since the oil spill began. Similar criticism leveled at President Bush when he appeared to be too removed from the Katrina devastation has some calling this Obama’s Katrina. Whether the comparison is fair or not is beside the point…the real issue here is one of public perception. If enough people begin to see parallels between the two presidents’ handling of these two tragic events, the political fallout will likely be as damaging to Obama as it was to Bush.

Crisis communication is only one aspect of the job for PR professionals. But right now, the gulf oil spill crisis is sucking the air out of any other PR agenda that the White House would prefer to have on page one. Short of successfully capping the leak and quickly cleaning up the gulf coast region, (neither of which look likely at this time), this crisis is going to continue to wear on the White House. As Mara Liasonn at NPR aptly noted, “the longer the spill goes uncapped and the greater the environmental damage, the harder it will be for the White House to look competent and effective.”

Posted on

Global Warming’s PR Problem

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but global warming (aka climate change) is a divisive issue. Amongst scientific theories it ranks right up there with the origin of human life as a topic on which scientists, and non-scientists, hold strongly to contrasting positions. Global warming evangelists, think Al Gore, have made a career espousing the dire consequences of ignoring the obvious fact that the earth is getting warmer. Melting polar ice caps and the resulting inundation of coastal regions, increasingly violent weather, and the inability of the world to feed itself are just a few of the consequences of standing by while the earth as we know it self-destructs.

One the other side are a few climatologists who are skeptical not so much of the gradual warming of the earth but of the causes of the warming. They also question the apocalyptic tone of those who are leading the charge to do something now to change our course.

But the bigger problem (in the eyes of Al Gore and friends) may be the growing skepticism of the American public about the claims of global warming. Why are American’s so skeptical about something that is very complex and difficult to understand? Perhaps it is the perception that those advocating for programs to address global warming are motivated by political concerns. Recent cap and trade legislation has been pushed by democratic members of congress but appears to be stalled by a lack of Republican support in the Senate.

Skepticism can also be tied to recent revelations of cover-ups, manipulation of data, and other unethical behavior on the part of global warming advocates. The release of incriminating emails and other documents suggests that even climatologists can be compromised when they commit to a position before all the evidence is in.

A recent article in the NY Times suggests yet another reason for a skeptical public. Meteorologists, aka weather forecasters, are frequently speaking out in opposition to the climate scientists’ dire predictions of global warming. According to the Times,

A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weather-casters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was “caused mostly by human activities.”More than a quarter of the weather-casters in the survey agreed with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” the researchers found.

Since local news weather forecasters are often seen as a credible source of information about weather-related issues, this difference between climate scientists and meteorologists poses a serious PR problem for those who want to convince the public that not only is global warming real, but that steps need to be taken now to avert disaster in the future.

Posted on

What Have We Become?

Sociologists, psychologists and others who study popular culture have been lamenting the decline of civil discourse for decades. Recent events have brought to light disturbing behavior that will, once again, become fodder for those of us who wonder about the role that media plays in the coarsening of communication.

First up, a text message exchange that led to the brutal beating of a 15-year-old female middle school student in Florida. According to the Washington Post, a 15-year-old male is being charged with premeditated attempted murder of his 15-year-old victim after repeatedly punching and stomping her with steel-toed boots. The boy’s 13-year-old girlfriend is being charged as an accomplice for pointing out the victim. This was necessary because the accused had never met his victim before the assault. But they HAD exchanged text messages in which the victim voiced disapproval of the relationship between the two accused teens. According to reports, the text exchange may have also included a reference to the fact that the boy’s older brother had recently committed suicide.

This past week has also seen passage of historic domestic legislation that will have enormous consequence for future generations. As Vice President Joe Biden exclaimed on live TV,  it’s a “big f***ing deal.” The Health Care Reform Bill passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama has been hotly debated and continues to generate strong passions on the part of supporters and those who oppose the bill. Some of those who oppose the bill have been accused of yelling racial epitaphs at members of congress and spitting on one member. ABC News has reported that the name calling on twitter has degenerated into calls for Obama’s assassination. According to ABC,

Another Twitter user who called himself THHEE_JAY and was identified as Jay Martin, tweeted “You Should be Assassinated!! @Barack Obama.”

Martin, who is black, followed his tweet, writing “If I lived in DC. I’d shoot him myself. Dead f***ing serious.”

Both of these instances offer sad commentary on the current state of human nature. But they also highlight the somewhat frightening tendency for online communication to quickly degenerate into exchanges that cross the line of what is acceptable in other contexts. If and when online conversations spill over into real-life actions we reap the tragic consequences.

Posted on

Citizen Investigative Reporter in Hot Water

Free-agent investigative reporter James O’Keefe has switched professions from pimp to telephone repairman. O’Keefe gained fame (or notoriety) last year when he posed as a pimp to record ACORN employees advocating illegal and unethical practices. His undercover sting won him praise from conservatives who have long suspected ACORN and led to congress cutting off funding for the community organization with links to Obama.

However, O’Keefe’s  use of undercover cameras and deception raised red flags for journalism’s leading ethicists. Journalists have a long-standing tradition of investigative reporting practices, but they also have strict guidelines that must be followed to avoid the pitfalls associated with this ethically gray area.

Now, it appears, O’Keefe’s questionable practices have landed him in hot water. Yesterday O’Keefe and several of his partners were arrested on charges of tampering with phones at Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office. While we do not yet know their motives, there may be a tie to the healthcare reform deal that Landrieu struck with her Democratic partners. The deal reportedly gained her state millions in additional Medicare funds in exchange for her vote of support.

What’s the lesson for students of journalism? As exciting as investigative reporting may appear on TV, the practice of investigative journalism is a lot more difficult, tedious, and boring than it seems. To do it right, you’ve got to spend a lot of time ensuring that your methods do not cross the line that separates good journalism from shoddy and unethical vigilantism. One more thing…if you want to be a citizen journalist, best to focus on straight news reporting for awhile and leave the investigative reporting to seasoned journalists who understand the ethical issues involved.

P.S.  The name of O’Keefe’s video company is Veritas Visuals. We’ll have to wait and see if veritas (Latin for truth) comes to his defense!

Posted on

Late Night with Prez Obama

NUP_134498_0162Last night President Obama made history when he became the first sitting president to appear on the Tonight Show. While Washington D.C. was embroiled in the AIG bonus scandal, our Chief Executive was discussing policy, and his bowling score, with Jay Leno in Hollywood, CA.  Something about it all seemed slightly unseemly and a little bit strange… as though the leader of the free world was seeking the kind of exposure that late-night TV hosts typically provide to comedians and film stars. Usually “the press” travels to DC and the White House to interview the president. There’s a certain seriousness demanded by the office and the oval office that bestows a sense of gravity to the whole affair…a gravity that is sorely lacking on late-night TV.

Some have argued that this is just the sort of relief that the American public needs when the economic hardship and the resulting rancorous debate in Washington has us all feeling slightly under the weather.  According to this line of thinking,  a little levity from the chief executive might provide some relief from our misery. But I suspect that Neil Postman might see it differently. Postman was a media theorist, and author of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. According to Postman, television is wholly unsuited for serious discourse and trivializes the most important of issues. Postman would not have been surprised that an American president would appear on a late-night comedy show. In fact, he would probably conclude that this was the inevitable outcome of a society preoccupied with entertainment and enraptured with celebrity. In his book Postman provides a short history of politicians intentionally presenting themselves as sources of amusement. JFK allowing the camera crew of Ed Murrow into his home, former President Richard Nixon appearing on Laugh In, former President Gerald Ford and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger taking brief roles on Dynasty, Tip O’Neill showing up on the sitcom Cheers, and Mayor Ed Koch hosting Saturday Night Live…these and other examples demonstrate that political celebrity is nothing new. President Obama’s actions simply take it to a new level.

And what is the result?  Postman concluded that, “Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world.” I wish he were wrong.

Posted on

$6 Billion for Broadband in Obama’s Stimulus Package

BroadbandOne of the first tasks for the new administration is to propose and pass a stimulus package to kick-start the ailing economy. One small part of the package currently being proposed is about $6,000,000,000 for broadband internet service, particularly for the 7-8% of Americans living in rural and underserved areas where broadband is unavailable and dial-up connections provide only 56 kbps. The US has already fallen behind the developed world and stands at 15th in terms of number of broadband subscribers per 100 residents. According to a recent report, this is critically important because broadband creates jobs. According to the Brookings Institution, for every percentage point increase in broadband adoption, approximately 293,000 jobs are added.

Not only are we lagging behind in the global race for connectivity, our broadband connections are often much slower than what is available in other countries. According to one report, the median download speed in the U.S. is 2.35 Mbps. Compare that to Japan whose median speed is an amazing 63.60 Mbps. And while fiber optic to the home (FTTH) is one approach to increasing bandwidth, new technologies in the works for cable modems offer great promise at much lower cost. Using a technology called Docsis 3, several cable TV channels can be combined to offer Internet service approaching 1 gigabit per second. At that speed you could download a two hour Hollywood movie in well under a minute. But while entertainment media is the driving force behind broadband adoption, the stakes are high for less exciting, but more important tasks. Telemedicine,  better access to online education and telecommuting are clear benefits that stimulate the economy when high-speed connectivity is universally available.

One last related issue is the battle over network neutrality. This is the idea that digital data delivered over public and private networks should not be restricted, regulated or controlled except those controls that address legal issues such as copyright infringement and other illegal actions. It is very possible that this $6 billion infusion will come with requirements that the major telecommunications businesses that own the fiber optic networks, and ISPs, practice net neutrality.

css.php