Americans think Presidential Media Coverage is Biased and Trivial

A new Harvard study called the "National Leadership Index 2007" of over 1200 individual interviews (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership) found that 64 percent of Americans don't trust media coverage of the presidential campaign. Also, 88 percent believe the coverage has too much focus on trivial issues, rather than major policy discussions. The study found that 84 percent believe the media has too much influence on American voting choices. More than 60 percent believe that media coverage is politically biased. What do you think about media coverage of the presidential campaign? Do you access DIVERSE media content in order to balance any possible bias? Or do you only access media content which agrees with your political worldview? HOW are you getting your presidential news? Broadcast TV? CABLE? Online? Print?

Impact of Writers Guild of America strike?

How has the now three-week-old Writers Guild of America strike affected your network TV usage, if at all?

According to LA Times writer Richard Verrier, "The strike may also accelerate the exodus of younger viewers from broadcast networks, which have been losing market share to the Internet and other forms of entertainment." (See Verrier's full article here)

Are you tuning out of network TV more than usual these days because of the strike and a lack of fresh programming? Or had you already abandoned broadcast networks for other forms of entertainment?

Colbert for President?

Comedian and fake journalist Stephen Colbert, star of the Colbert Report, has officially announced his intention to run for the office of President of the United States. He will enter the Presidential race in his native South Carolina, where he intends to run as a "favorite son" in the January, 2008 primary.



I've blogged before about entertainers entering politics, but this time the line blurring TV persona and authentic candidate is nearly imperceptible. Remember too that there is an historical precedent. You may recall Laugh-In comedian Pat Paulsen who ran for president as a gag in 1968, and then like Forrest Gump couldn't stop running.

Is Colbert, the man who nearly had a bridge in Hungary named after him, who has a Ben & Jerry's icecream flavor called AmeriCone Dream, and who is the genius behind "truthiness" and "wikiality," just toying with us or is this more than a stunt? We should know more tomorrow, after the November 1st filing deadline.

Oh, but there is one little problem. Something called the Equal Time Provision may be interpreted to mean that Colbert will have to give up his cable TV show, or force Comedy Central to offer equal time to competing candidates. Hey wait a minute, that might be pretty funny...or not!

Will Microsoft or Google own the future?

Microsoft has coughed up $240 million for a tiny share of Facebook – strange to some considering Facebook doesn’t generate $200 million in annual revenue (some Wall Street analysts place the Facebook value at $15 billion).

What did Bill Gates get? A stake in the Future - otherwise know as Social Networking.

MySpace is still the best in show, but Facebook is eyeing 50 million active users (both of these sites are an advertiser’s dream come true).

Google owns YouTube and DoubleClick (they were considering a stake in Facebook but Microsoft has obviously beat them to the punch), but they lack SN power.

So… can you see the future? Google needs Social Networking – where will they get it, how will they compete with Facebook or MySpace? Can Facebook lead, or will they always play second fiddle to MySpace? What is Microsoft’s plan aside from on-line advertisements inside Facebook? What new platforms, models, or applications will Microsoft deliver?

Will Santa be Bringing Toys for Christmas?

The Federal Trade Commission is getting quite involved in the recent toy crisis involving not only the famous toymaker, Mattel, but several others, as well. The incident involves China, the leading toymaker of U.S. toys, creating toys with lead paint, which is extremely harmful to children. Hundreds of thousands of Barbie dolls, GI Joes and other famous toys have been recalled to protect the U.S. consumer. Federal legislators are looking at the possibility of new regulations on the import of toys before they're sold to consumers.

A recent survey by eToys.com found that 59% of those surveyed believe toys made outside the U.S. are less safe than those made in America. In fact, 45% said they were willing to now pay more for toys that are made in the U.S.

Mattel has apologized to its consumers; Mattel has apologized to China stating that it isn't entirely their fault; Mattel may be facing its more serious issue ever...will the famous toymaker we all know and love be able to maintain its reputation as the world's greatest maker of...safe...toys? What should Mattel do to insure that its reputation stays intact?

Should the federal government get involved to insure toy safety, which may increase the price of toys? Should we expect the toy industry to regulate themselves? Should the toy industry stop doing business with China?

What kinds of toys will you be buying this Christmas?...or should I say, Santa?!

Press conference etiquette

Last week, Oklahoma State University football coach Mike Gundy issued a harsh (and, at times, personal) criticism of Jenni Carlson, a reporter/columnist from The Oklahoman, during a press conference (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VytIZZzee0 for Gundy’s comments during the initial press conference; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4AisVxShCs&NR=1 for The Oklahoman’s response to the press conference; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NGlt9v8lMY&NR=1 for Gundy’s follow-up comments). How does this kind of behavior during a press conference influence 1) the reputations of the individuals and organizations speaking at/holding the press conferences and 2) the individuals and organizations criticized during the press conference? Do you think this kind of criticism/behavior is appropriate during a press conference?

What's the Point?

A recent article in Advertising Age points to Wal-Mart's consumer base (Sep 3; pg 6, Jack Neff) and the interesting mix of individuals who find shopping there a good decision. Considering that Wal-Mart has recently unveiled a new ad campaign focusing on a change in slogan that encourages us to "live better", the belief that Wal-Mart shoppers are governed by an addiction to the price point is probably overstated. According to Neff's article, 56% of those studied are Wal-Mart lovers; 44 percent are indifferent or Wal-Mart haters.

Among the lovers are the price-value shoppers (16%), brand aspirationals (29%) and 11% are identified as price-sensitive affluents--those median income shoppers who need a bargain now and then. Brand aspirationals are heavy Wal-Mart users, says Neff's research, but they aren't emotionally committed to Wal-Mart as much as they are to the strong or super brands that are available on Wal-Mart's shelves.

Looking at the new advertising campaign--basically pay less, live better--certainly targets the gasoline price-pinched consumers who spend too much on gas and other commodities and therefore have less money for other important needs, but what's the point? Is Wal-Mart going after the emotionally uncommitted here or are they providing a convincing argument that shopping at Wal-Mart is the retail equivalent of having your cake and eating it too?

Wal-Mart, like every other discounter (or retailer) wants to be on the cutting edge and still be number one. Basically, the new ad campaign says middle class bargain hunter. We'll see what happens in the 4th quarter!

Who do you trust?

American culture has been experiencing an erosion of trust for some time, but a recent American Pulse Survey paints a bleak picture for politicians and the media. According to the survey of nearly 4,000 Americans, only 2.2% trust members of the Senate while 2.6% trust members of the House. Media doesn't do much better garnering trust from only 4.4% of Americans. Bloggers do slightly better with 5.8% and the President weighs in with a surprising 14.2%. Add them up and you find that there is still a lot of distrust out there...nearly 71% do not trust any of the above.




Another study (Edelman) looked at the issue of trust worldwide and compared trust in various industries. In the US, the media were dead last...behind Technology, Pharmaceuticals, Automotive, Energy, Retail, Health Care...even Insurance.

So who do they trust? More and more it is defined as "people like me." Word-of-mouth from my peers is still a trusted source. How about you...who do you trust? And why do you think the media is so unworthy of the nation's trust?

Preventing Demonstrators

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making law that would abridge the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some citizens, however, have found that our current president doesn't want any protests or demonstrations to spoil his public appearances. A young Texas couple, Jeffery and Nicole Rank, learned that the hard way on July 4, 2004, when they were arrested on the West Virginia capitol grounds after peacefully expressing their opposition to President Bush.

The two wore homemade T-shirts on which the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) was superimposed over the word "Bush." One shirt said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back; the other said "Regime Change Starts At Home."

They were asked to leave or cover up the shirts, and when they didn't do either, they were arrested, charged with trespassing, handcuffed and taken to jail despite their protests that they had the right to express their opinions under the protection of the First Amendment.

Later, charges were dismissed and the City of Charleston apologized to the couple.

The Ranks sued the federal government, which settled with them in August for $80,000, but not before the couple's ACLU lawyers managed to win release of a heavily redacted classified document (only a few of the 130 pages still show their content) that is a field manual for those who set up presidential appearances around the nation. The manual contains sections such as how to recognize demonstrators and how to stop them (literally: "Preventing Demonstrators").

The tactics used against the Ranks, though later costing the government some money, effectively did just that.

The question is: How should we interpret the First Amendment? If we have the right peaceably to assemble and protest, does government have the right to remove that inconvenient protest from sight and apologize later for the First Amendment infringement? Or does government have an obligation to allow the protestors to be seen and possibly heard (citizens with opposing viewpoints could drown them out -- and in fact, the manual suggests doing that before removal)? Where should the line be drawn, if at all?

Satellite of Love

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is giving thumbs down to the proposed XM and Sirius merger. The National Association of Broadcasters have demonized both satellite radio companies and have spent millions on lobbying in the hopes of blocking the marriage. The Catholic Church and the NAACP strongly support XM and Sirius joining forces. A line has been drawn in the sand and the government’s decision (anti-trust, etc.) may be coming soon.

So… where do you stand? Is the merger good for the consumer – is there any real benefit for the listener? Are we looking at two broken business models that will eventually break down even if they merge? Make your prediction now, and laugh or cry when the decision is announced.

Who Reads Books Anymore?

It's the start of another university school year. The bookstore is thriving on the book purchases that students are required by professors to make.

But what about reading for fun? Does anybody do it anymore?

A recent AP-Ipsos poll finds that 25 percent of adults didn't read ANY books last year! The other 75 percent reported reading an average of seven books in 2006.

What's that? About one book every two months?

Okay, so a book is this print thing that has lots of pages, costs money, and has to be lugged around. It's not instantanous, and it's not on a screen for free.

Most college students probably read so much for school that many don't read for entertainment during their university years. Of course, if you don't read for entertainment, reading a book for school might be a painful experience...

So there might be three questions here:
1. Do you read books? How many? How often? What genre?
2. Do you read anything for entertainment? Websites, online books, comic books?
3. And if you don't read books...or much of anything for fun... why not?

If you missed the 40th Anniversary bash...

Here's the video!

First there was Ronald, and then Arnold, and now Al!

America has seen its share of movie stars and TV actors who have made the leap from entertainment to politics. Ronal Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are just two recent examples. But is America ready for a former comedian in the Senate? I know what you’re thinking…it couldn’t be any worse that some of the jokers we have now.

More than twenty years ago Neil Postman observed the demise of serious political discourse and identified television as the culprit. According to Postman, the triviality of television makes everything on it trivial…including political speech and campaigning. In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman argued, “The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining” (p. 87). Postman maintained that television reduces important conversations to snippits and sound bites, with too much attention paid to the image and too little to the message. For Postman, as with McLuhan, the medium is the message--and TV is a visual medium that caters to those who have short attention spans. Postman also observed more than twenty years ago that the emphasis on the visual nature of the medium means that we will no longer consider overweight or homely candidates. And those with facial hair shouldn’t even think about running for office. But for a candidate who is blessed with good looks, a quick wit, and an ability to perform in front of the cameras, the sky (or the Whitehouse) is the limit.

It would come as no surprise to Postman, (who died in 2003) that Al Franken, a comedian, whose claim-to-fame is as a writer and actor for Saturday Night Live, could consider a run for political office.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. NY: Penguin books.

The Dixie Chicks and their Grammys

At this year's Grammy Awards, the Dixie Chicks won in all five categories in which they were nominated (Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal, Best Country Album, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Album of the Year).

Do you think these awards were given as an industry message in support of free speech? Or was it a message from an often-perceived liberal industry thumbing its nose at right-leaning music fans? Maybe there was no intended message...what do you think?

All You Need is Love

Apple Inc. and Apple Corps have decided to kiss and make up. The terms of the settlement are confidential ( Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license a portion of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use). Hint hint - it may be a very special Valentine’s Day for Beatles fans on iTunes.

However, if you’re in college, you might not care that Sargent Pepper’s could soon be available for “legal” download (not to mention Beatles demos, outtakes, previously unreleased songs - I'm getting goosebumps already) . Multiple studies still show that college students have no ethical issues with illegal downloading, etc. So, how do we fix this? How do we get a generation/culture to understand, stealing is not cool? Should we offer stiffer penalties, community service or jail time - can we force them to attend a Mariah Carey concert?

Seriously… can these people be saved?

What theory is operational?

There's no question that the rapid technological changes of the past decade have created armies of citizen-publishers throughout the world, and certainly divisions of those armies consider themselves citizen-journalists, whether working for or at mainstream media outlets or not.

Traditionally, there have been four theories of the press (Authoritarian, Libertarian, Communist and Social Responsibility), but the new press landscape, which defies geographic, ideological, professional and economic barriers, and in all four theories of the press overlap, seems to cry out for the invention of a "unified field" theory of the press -- or for surrender to the Libertarian theory as the only real possibility in a worldwide sea of information anarchy.

If the former, has anyone developed it, and what are its main points?
If the latter, how should we educate the public and our students so they may function in a society that relies on the free press to ensure its freedom and democratic form of government?

Media Ranks Last in recent Consumer Trust Survey: Why?

Business is more trusted than either government or media in every region of the world, according to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, a survey of 3100 international opinion leaders.Survey results had business most credible in 13 of 18 countries.
In the U.S., business trust has increased from the prior survey, with 53% of respondants ranking business first, a comeback after lower rankings following the Enron and WorldCom criminal activities.
Prior Edelman surveys have ranked the nonprofit sector first among possible choices, followed by business, then government. Media rankings continue to be last in Edelman U.S. surveys.
Why do you think U.S. media have lower trust rankings than business or government? What issues or concerns do you think consumers have with U.S. media? How do you think U.S. media is perceived by consumers in other countries?