National Public Radio is trying everything possible not simply to become a dreadful place. It is not having much success. The news of the economy is almost never positive.
NPR is not in decline simply because of the economy, though. It is helping with its own brand of drama - terrible journalism. The recent story on college students with ADD sharing their Adderall was both devoid of any real utility and suffered from a complete dearth factual underpinning. Does such anecdotal fluff really constitute world news?
The dramatic crisis language used to conclude the Adderall story caused me nearly to be flung from my treadmill. A breathy voice invoked the fearful consequences of inaction regarding a complete non-problem. In a word, the piece was completely terrible!
A few college students sometimes take amphetamines! That's a story?
I hear more of this type of story on NPR than in earlier years. Maybe the frequency is the same, and I am more attuned.
I am going to stop listening to these stories. I hope I stop listening because NPR stops broadcasting these stories. The alternative is my iPod. It's a dangerous weapon, but I am willing to use it.
Showing posts with label Media Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Analysis. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2009
On Economic Predictions
I must say that I am very impressed with the ability of various economists and other prognosticators to accurately diagnose the month, day and hour that the recovery will take hold. Seriously, how can they even show their faces? Their understanding and prediction of the crisis itself is matched only by the CIA's success predicting the dissolution of the Soviet Union at end of the cold war. Yet they spew their pithy opinion as though it were knowledge -- and I hear them parroted by family, friends and colleagues alike -- all day long, every day of the week. Of course we are depressed. The world isn't as horrible as the news.
Here is my prediction. The economic crisis will be over when we trust it is over. It will be followed by an economic recovery. Early trusters will cause it. Later trusters will engage later. Business trusters will need to believe it, because they will drive it.
The bailout may help.
A much greater help would be for all of us to turn off NPR and CNN. It will help tremendously if we all completely abandon the news for a few months: Total news blackout. I predict that, if we completely ignore the media for three to six months, we will return in late summer or fall to find the world in much better shape than we thought possible. Otherwise, the media output will continue to put pressure on the availability and price of cheap wine.
I should admit that, once the blackout starts, I may continue occasionally to read David Brooks' column, and sneak a secret peek at Gail Collins. We all have our addictions.
So let's all go out together and buy something today, and every day.
Regarding the economic turn-around, I hope it is not long.
Here is my prediction. The economic crisis will be over when we trust it is over. It will be followed by an economic recovery. Early trusters will cause it. Later trusters will engage later. Business trusters will need to believe it, because they will drive it.
The bailout may help.
A much greater help would be for all of us to turn off NPR and CNN. It will help tremendously if we all completely abandon the news for a few months: Total news blackout. I predict that, if we completely ignore the media for three to six months, we will return in late summer or fall to find the world in much better shape than we thought possible. Otherwise, the media output will continue to put pressure on the availability and price of cheap wine.
I should admit that, once the blackout starts, I may continue occasionally to read David Brooks' column, and sneak a secret peek at Gail Collins. We all have our addictions.
So let's all go out together and buy something today, and every day.
Regarding the economic turn-around, I hope it is not long.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Let begin the General Election Primary!
Democratic primary candidates should now campaign against the Republican Party turning this period into the General Election Primary. For the remainder of the Democratic primary campaign, starting right now, both Democratic candidates should turn and immediately train their fire on the presumptive Republican nominee.
In addition to the essential brilliance of such a plan, the General Election Primary resolves a number of practical problems, and may provide a blueprint for future primary contests.
How would this work?
Starting immediately, both Clinton and Obama should begin to contest the general election. Each Democratic candidate will ignore the other Democratic candidate, and each will campaign solely against the Republican platform, that party's presumptive nominee, his positions and ideas, and his legislative and oratorical history.
There are scores of benefits for Democrats from a General Election Primary.
Democrats can stop the internecine struggles. The Democratic candidates will stop sniping at each other. This change alone will lift the entire party. New cause for compromise may even be birthed here. The growing ire between the two camps has caused one camp to question the other campaign's legitimacy, with reciprocity in the question the of fitness of the first. Both are false questions. Democrats can move on, so they must.
The two campaigns will cease to provide made to order sound bites for the opposition general election commercials. Enough snapshots have been produced already to be sure. I do not take this issue terribly seriously. Most pundits agree, however, that it is a pretty common practice, and this year will be no different. Democrats can do better, so they must.
The Republican nominee is currently basically getting a free ride. Many pundits think that candidate is fairly squandering an opportunity by closely linking himself with the evangelical right and the neo-cons. Maybe. But this period is equally an opportunity squandered for Democrats, inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of voters from all political stripes have rejected the approaches of both of those groups as guiding principles. Highlighting the policy linkages of the presumptive Republican nominee and keeping him off-balance would be an incalculably much better use of the Democratic candidates' time and money than a continued discussion of the nearly non-existent policy differences between them. Democrats can be more effective, so they must.
Very importantly, the General Election Primary provides the voracious and bored -- and thus dangerous - media with something more substantive and interesting to cover.
One of the main problems in the current Democratic primary -- illustrated on The Daily Show's nightly video collage -- is that the 24 hour media cycle is bored. NOTHING happens all day. The OReilly-Olberman Twins are more dangerous when they are bored, if that is possible. The O-Twins actively misinterpret everything and NOTHING when they are not bored. They fabricate outright about NOTHING when they are bored. I like Keith Olberman and his Miami Vice-style "news" production much better when he is not also engaged in his dramatic teary-eyed Sally Struthers "The Children!" imitation, or his hollow and hallowed "How Could You?" euro-indigation.
Currently, a bored but ambitious reporter somewhere gleans and actively strips from its context some trivial one-phrase quotation about NOTHING from the news-free black hole. The MSNBC-NYT-CNN-WP-FOX-LAT-NBC-ABC-PBS ©Newsglomerate then reports slash repeats that context-free NOTHING ad nauseum over the next 48 hours, or until the next too-clever columnist diverts their ferret-sized attention span to the next phrase. A General Election Primary will provide the media a surfeit of appropriate material. As an editorial note, I love watching talking heads. I do not find it productive for the Democrats right now. Democrats can provide more substance, so they must.
Most importantly, the entire electorate will get to experience and evaluate the strategies and approaches, the inventiveness, the creativeness, and the effectiveness each Democratic candidate can muster against the Republican candidate. What an invaluable bit of data to have! Consider the General Election Primary an internship, with real on-the-campaign-trail training for the general election. All hiring-managers would revel to review a potential employee's work for three months before hiring him, but the factors arrayed against that option in business are many. In this case, however, the candidates will be doing exactly the same job as they are now for the same pay, but facing a new, more salient, and more legitimate target. Consider further the fantastic positive impact of two big guns pounding incessantly on the opposing machine. Democrats can innovate, so they must.
It is my observation that Obama is a great speaker on great issues. He is relatively less effective with wonk-speak. Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire in the same manner with grand themes of hope and inspiration, but she is very effective at wonk-speak. Democrats should look forward to an experience mixing these ingredients in a simultaneous general race with the presumptive Republican nominee. Democrats can evaluate, so they must.
Begin the General Election Primary!
Democrats
can
compete
with
the opposition,
so
they must.
In addition to the essential brilliance of such a plan, the General Election Primary resolves a number of practical problems, and may provide a blueprint for future primary contests.
How would this work?
Starting immediately, both Clinton and Obama should begin to contest the general election. Each Democratic candidate will ignore the other Democratic candidate, and each will campaign solely against the Republican platform, that party's presumptive nominee, his positions and ideas, and his legislative and oratorical history.
There are scores of benefits for Democrats from a General Election Primary.
Democrats can stop the internecine struggles. The Democratic candidates will stop sniping at each other. This change alone will lift the entire party. New cause for compromise may even be birthed here. The growing ire between the two camps has caused one camp to question the other campaign's legitimacy, with reciprocity in the question the of fitness of the first. Both are false questions. Democrats can move on, so they must.
The two campaigns will cease to provide made to order sound bites for the opposition general election commercials. Enough snapshots have been produced already to be sure. I do not take this issue terribly seriously. Most pundits agree, however, that it is a pretty common practice, and this year will be no different. Democrats can do better, so they must.
The Republican nominee is currently basically getting a free ride. Many pundits think that candidate is fairly squandering an opportunity by closely linking himself with the evangelical right and the neo-cons. Maybe. But this period is equally an opportunity squandered for Democrats, inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of voters from all political stripes have rejected the approaches of both of those groups as guiding principles. Highlighting the policy linkages of the presumptive Republican nominee and keeping him off-balance would be an incalculably much better use of the Democratic candidates' time and money than a continued discussion of the nearly non-existent policy differences between them. Democrats can be more effective, so they must.
Very importantly, the General Election Primary provides the voracious and bored -- and thus dangerous - media with something more substantive and interesting to cover.
One of the main problems in the current Democratic primary -- illustrated on The Daily Show's nightly video collage -- is that the 24 hour media cycle is bored. NOTHING happens all day. The OReilly-Olberman Twins are more dangerous when they are bored, if that is possible. The O-Twins actively misinterpret everything and NOTHING when they are not bored. They fabricate outright about NOTHING when they are bored. I like Keith Olberman and his Miami Vice-style "news" production much better when he is not also engaged in his dramatic teary-eyed Sally Struthers "The Children!" imitation, or his hollow and hallowed "How Could You?" euro-indigation.
Currently, a bored but ambitious reporter somewhere gleans and actively strips from its context some trivial one-phrase quotation about NOTHING from the news-free black hole. The MSNBC-NYT-CNN-WP-FOX-LAT-NBC-ABC-PBS ©Newsglomerate then reports slash repeats that context-free NOTHING ad nauseum over the next 48 hours, or until the next too-clever columnist diverts their ferret-sized attention span to the next phrase. A General Election Primary will provide the media a surfeit of appropriate material. As an editorial note, I love watching talking heads. I do not find it productive for the Democrats right now. Democrats can provide more substance, so they must.
Most importantly, the entire electorate will get to experience and evaluate the strategies and approaches, the inventiveness, the creativeness, and the effectiveness each Democratic candidate can muster against the Republican candidate. What an invaluable bit of data to have! Consider the General Election Primary an internship, with real on-the-campaign-trail training for the general election. All hiring-managers would revel to review a potential employee's work for three months before hiring him, but the factors arrayed against that option in business are many. In this case, however, the candidates will be doing exactly the same job as they are now for the same pay, but facing a new, more salient, and more legitimate target. Consider further the fantastic positive impact of two big guns pounding incessantly on the opposing machine. Democrats can innovate, so they must.
It is my observation that Obama is a great speaker on great issues. He is relatively less effective with wonk-speak. Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire in the same manner with grand themes of hope and inspiration, but she is very effective at wonk-speak. Democrats should look forward to an experience mixing these ingredients in a simultaneous general race with the presumptive Republican nominee. Democrats can evaluate, so they must.
Begin the General Election Primary!
Democrats
can
compete
with
the opposition,
so
they must.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Even Fox News...
loves Obama, in their "Fair and Balanced" manner.
Last night they "interviewed" a representative from each of the campaigns.
Question to Clinton Campaign: You just had a campaign shake-up. The new advisor is a black woman. Was that an effort to improve sagging relations with black voters, with whom you are struggling?
Question to Obama Campaign: Your candidate gave a great speech last night. Tell us about it.
Something
strange
is
in the air.
Something
very
very
strange.
Last night they "interviewed" a representative from each of the campaigns.
Question to Clinton Campaign: You just had a campaign shake-up. The new advisor is a black woman. Was that an effort to improve sagging relations with black voters, with whom you are struggling?
Question to Obama Campaign: Your candidate gave a great speech last night. Tell us about it.
Something
strange
is
in the air.
Something
very
very
strange.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Huckabee is right...
about one important issue.
The American People have embraced civility in this election to a greater extent than any election since before Reagan.
Every state primary and caucus has reacted negatively to negative campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to be seen trying to make another candidate look bad as a person.
On both sides, Republicans and Democrats.
Edwards picked on Hillary, saying he and Obama were the guys. He was wrong.
Romney hammered on McCain. That turned out badly for him.
There is a competition between both Clinton and Obama, and Huckabee and McCain, to be seen as the nicest guy, resulting in a conversation among gentle-persons, a very aristocratic affair.
I wonder whether this trait will or can be extended into the general election.
Would
that
be
a great
change,
or
what?
The American People have embraced civility in this election to a greater extent than any election since before Reagan.
Every state primary and caucus has reacted negatively to negative campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to be seen trying to make another candidate look bad as a person.
On both sides, Republicans and Democrats.
Edwards picked on Hillary, saying he and Obama were the guys. He was wrong.
Romney hammered on McCain. That turned out badly for him.
There is a competition between both Clinton and Obama, and Huckabee and McCain, to be seen as the nicest guy, resulting in a conversation among gentle-persons, a very aristocratic affair.
I wonder whether this trait will or can be extended into the general election.
Would
that
be
a great
change,
or
what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
