America the Introverted

Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, and former United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, is currently visiting the Beloit College campus.

This afternoon, Egeland attended Georgia Duerst-Lahti’s U.S. Media and Politics in a Global Context class. Egeland engaged the students in an insightful question and answer session, stressing his perceptions of the media and its role in our world.

Media, argued Egeland, does not accurately portray the ratio of positive to negative interactions between nations and political actors.

“War and peace slowly breaking out is not a news story. A dramatic case of violence breaking out in war is a news story,” said Egeland. “Yet, the world has gotten better for a very clear majority.”

Egelend further stressed the incompetence of western media by referring to research he conducted in 2003. Egeland felt that the horrific war in Congo, which he considers to be one of the most serious conflicts of this decade, was underrepresented in western news. So, he searched for some cold, hard statistics. What he discovered was unsettling.

From 1998- 2006, five million people have died as a result of this war. But how often does this war appear in the news? Not often. In 2003, there were six stories run by major news networks concerning the war in the Congo.

There were over 1,800 stories about Michael Jackson’s court hearings.

Why? Egeland suggests that “A) Nobody cares about Africa. And, B) they speak French there. Nobody cares at all about a non-English speaking African country.”

How can we fix this problem? Egeland points to the U.S. lack of foreign correspondents. Perhaps we Americans ought to invest in such correspondences. Or maybe we should just start caring about Africa.

“Because of the debacle in Iraq, there is a danger that the U.S. and its media will become introverted,” Egeland said.

It looks as though we already are.

Reversal of Fortune

It wasn't supposed to turn out like this.

When this election cycle began over a year ago, the left was gleeful over the perceived prospects of their side. The Republicans were in disarray, damaged by an extremely unpopular president and an uninspiring field of candidates. The party's far right (the same wing which had been essential to Bush's two electoral victories) bemoaned the Republican lineup as being too moderate (McCain) too liberal (Guliani) too lazy (Thompson) or too Mormon (Romney.) The only one they really liked was Huckabee, but he was met with a lack of enthusiasm by everyone in the party besides the right wing. The writing on the wall was clear: the GOP was going to split in two, with the evangelicals and social conservatives staying home on election day. The Dems would have their nominee elected by Super Tuesday, and he or she would coast to an easy victory in November while the right self-destructed.

What a difference a primary makes.

Somehow, the Democrats have managed to turn these circumstances on their head. Gone is the cocky swagger many liberals sported during the early days of this campaign. In its place is a new and growing anxiety, a fear that the Dems may have doomed themselves. Now, they are the party which has been split down the center, divided between Obama and Clinton supporters. And meanwhile, John McCain coasts along, staying out of the crossfire and largely away from the ire of the media. While both Obama and Clinton continue to take damage in the polls, he remains relatively unscathed.

Even worse for the Dems is the news that the bickering might damage November turnout. 16% of Clinton supporters, and an equal number of Obama voters, say they will not vote for the other candidate if he/she wins the nomination. This figure is probably inflated a bit, as this is an emotional time for the Democrats, so it's quite likely that a number of those polled will change their minds between now and then. But it's a worrisome sign of a growing split within the party, which can only get worse as the primary drags on.

Yesterday I reported on the cryptic claim by Harry Reid that "things are being done" to bring this contest to a close. Today another big-name Dem, Senator Chris Dodd, said in an interview that it's time to end the race. In fairness, Dodd is an Obama superdelegate, and is going by the notion that Obama has already won thanks to near-insurmountable delegate and popular vote numbers. But nonetheless, his comments strike an all-too-familiar nerve with members of his party. And he's not alone.

Dodd and Reid are joined by a growing number of prominent party members who are afraid that if something isn't done, and fast, the Democrats may end up blowing the biggest chance they've had in decades.

Meghan and Chelsea: Sneaky Strategists

Dubbed a “political outsider,” by the Washington Post, Meghan McCain certainly adds a unique dimension to the election. Her blog, “McCain Blogette.com: Musings and Pop Culture on the Political Trail,” is quite interesting as well. The blog features playlists of her favorite songs, humorous YouTube Videos, and pictures of cool shoes she has seen. There are also lists, such as “Ten Things You Didn’t Know about Mom.”

Is there a strategy behind all this “fluff?” I think so.

While Meghan’s blog may generate its share of laughs and raised eyebrows, it also sheds a more youthful perspective on the campaign trail. Her frequent pop culture references and fashion commentary are sure to appeal to some young women (and young men will certainly enjoy ogling pictures of “Meghan the hottie.”)

The blog also showcases a plethora of Meghan’s personal pictures, which feature political actors in casual poses. There are shots of Meghan helping “Mommy McCain” do her hair, shots of Senator Graham (“the coolest guy ever”) lounging at a Barbeque, and, of course, several close-up pictures of Meghan and her friends smiling brilliantly and goofing off.

Despite the flighty captions and silly comments (“OMG! A sign for my blog!” “Look at mom’s cute shoes!” “Greg and Lisa are the cutest couple ever.”) the pictures may, in fact, serve a deeper purpose.



For example, study this picture of “Daddy McCain,” which appears next to the caption: “Dad finally gets to chill out. This might be one of my all time fav pics of him!” In this photograph, McCain is smiling a genuine smile, and wearing “normal-people clothes.” He looks like your average American dad, and this is a side of him that most Americans have never seen.

Chelsea Clinton, in a fierce contrast of Meghan, is taking a slightly different approach as she campaigns for her mother. Chelsea appeals to young people as well, but tends to present herself in a more composed and formal manner. She is a good speaker, and is constantly quoted making interesting and intelligent comments about her mother and the election. She speaks at schools and colleges around the country, and serves as a trained spokesperson for her mother.

Yet, Chelsea does use some of the same strategies as Meghan. Chelsea poses for pictures with supporters and “fans,” and constantly refers to her close relationship with her mother. By speaking about her family, and presenting herself as “an average,” yet intelligent young woman, she positively reflects upon her mother, and shares a more personal faucet of Hilary’s personality with the world.

Chelsea, however, does not have a blog.



Meghan's friend, Cindy McCain (yes, Cindy McCain), and Meghan, dancing on the windowsill.

Snipers and Secrets

With Obama off at the beach for another day, it seems that the media has wasted little time in turning its attention (and its wrath) toward Hillary Clinton. It might be to his advantage to take a longer vacation.

ITEM ONE!


It's no secret that a cornerstone of Hillary's campaign has been experience. "Ready on Day One" has been a rallying cry among her supporters, not to mention a subtle dig at her opponent. But as the months have passed, the Obama camp has ramped up the pressure for Hillary to demonstrate some examples of this experience, especially after Hillary's famous "3 AM" ads went public. Obama has charged that the former First Lady has just as much real foreign policy experience as he does: next to none (an argument which must make the thoroughly experienced John McCain smile.)

Perhaps it was out of that pressure to show off real foreign policy chops that Hillary made the now-infamous Sniper Comment.

During a speech last week, Hillary spoke of a trip to Bosnia in 1996. "I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia and ... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the first lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

It sounds like a good example of showing strength under pressure. The problem is that it's not true.

Hillary did arrive in Bosnia, but she was not met with sniper fire. No one ran with their heads down. And in fact, it was bad weather which made the President cancel his trip there, not security concerns. And that greeting ceremony went just as planned.

What's interesting is that once the press (and the Obama campaign) called Hillary on these inaccuracies, she stood by the story. Only when video of the landing appeared did she admit she made a mistake. The Obama camp was quick to point out that she had made this claim at least twice before, on March 17 and February 29.

So why didn't Hillary admit to the inaccuracy right away? It might have kept the story from ballooning the way it has. Perhaps she did not think it was that big a problem. But in refusing to admit to the misstatement until she'd been caught in it, Hillary only added fuel to the claim that she has trouble admitting mistakes; a trait which has already helped Barack Obama on the campaign trail, as he has continuously asked why she won't admit her vote in favor of the Iraq War was wrong.

Even worse, the sniper flap hurts Clinton's credibility, and as the candidate with the lowest trustworthy rating out of the remaining three, that's a problem she cannot afford. What can Hillary do to reverse this problem? Make sure she doesn't exaggerate again, and swallow her pride and admit to mistakes when she makes them. As Hillary herself put it, "Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else." Only occasionally? I guess gaffes travel in pairs.


ITEM TWO!

Hillary has contended all along that she has no intention of dropping out until everyone has voted. Obama, of course, isn't dropping out either. Which leaves the Democrats with a serious problem: McCain is coasting undisturbed as presumptive Republican nominee, collecting money and remaining relatively unscathed while the two Democrats attack each other. The prospect of this primary continuing right up until the convention -- a mere two months prior to election day -- is pretty unnerving to most Democrats. After all, this election was supposed to be a cakewalk for them. But as time goes on, the old joke, "how will the Democrats blow it THIS time?" seems to be getting a clear answer.

But the Democratic power players recognize this problem and seem to be cooking up a solution. What sort of solution? Well...that's a secret. But Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has cryptically stated that "things are being done" to wrap this process up before the convention.

What sort of things? He won't say. But the prevailing scenario among commentators and pundits calls for the Dems to hold a "delegate primary" right after the final primary contest on June 5th. All the delegates would cast their votes then instead of at the convention, thus crowning a nominee in early June rather than late August. This might technically rob the convention of its purpose, but in practice it would simply make it the same as it usually is: a glorified coronation party for the already-determined nominee.

Of course, Reid's comments might be just talk designed to calm a jittery electorate. The exact nature of the plan -- if there even is a plan -- remains a secret.

The Day’s “Top Stories”

These stories were listed as “top news” on (Washingtonpost.com WashingtonPost.com):

Hilary Clinton released her plans to deal with the nation’s housing crisis. Her plans are complex and detailed, and have gained a great deal of attention from democratic supporters trying to decide between Obama and Clinton. In a recent poll conducted by Newsweek, 43% of the participating democrats said that they felt that Obama would do a better job of improving the nation’s economy. 42% said that Clinton would do a better job. Clinton’s strategists say that Clinton’s plan is much more accepted than McCain’s housing crisis solution, but that Obama and Clinton’s plans are “neck and neck.”

In other news… the US mistakenly shipped fuses used in nuclear weapons to Taiwan in 2006. Only last week did they detect their error. This does not ease the concern of many Americans that our government may have a few security issues to patch up.

And… a rugby team made of military personnel “maintains strong bonds.”

The New York Times On-line listed these as their top stories:

Heavy fighting in Basra and Baghdad broke out today. The Iraqi people and the US troops banded together to take on the Shiite Militia. “The security situation is getting worse day by day,” she said. “The city is getting very bad now. We’ve been through this before, so we find it natural. But we don’t know what to do,” said Sahar Gani, a teacher in Baghdad.

In other news… violence builds in Zimbabwe as the election for president draws closer.

And… scientists are investigating the mysterious deaths of several hundreds of North American bats.

A vacation in name only

Since we're in a bit of a lull in the primary season right now, it seems as good a time as any for the embattled candidates to take a little R&R. So Barack Obama has taken his family on a brief Easter holiday to an unspecified location. But the media quickly discovered that he was on St. Thomas (part of the US Virgin Islands), which created a bit of and ethical dilemma: is it right to follow a candidate on vacation? On the one hand, he IS a public figure, and just the fact that he's on vacation is national news. On the other hand, Obama clearly wanted some privacy, and how much actual news is likely to come up while he's lounging on the beach, anyway? To say nothing of the privacy of his two daughters, who are certainly not public figures. Where does one draw the line?

In the end, CNN was the only outfit that sent anyone out cover the Obama vacation. They even managed to get some video of the candidate at rest. The footage is more than a bit sketchy; it seems that Obama doesn't even realize that he's being videotaped. When does reporting cross the line into stalking? Does being a presidential candidate mean you give up any chance of refuge from the press?

As mentioned earlier, only one media outlet sent anyone to cover the vacation. But the others were more than happpy to report what CNN found, of course. Did CNN commit an ethical gaffe? Perhaps. But it could be that ethics weren't the motivation for the other organizations leaving Obama alone. Regularly covering a candidate can be almost as tiring as being a candidate. Jeff Zeleny, who works the New York Times' Obama beat and has been covering the candidate since the race began, said the vacation "kind of felt like the beginning of spring break.”

Hope they both get some shut-eye, because Obama goes back to the campaign trail on Wednesday.

IN OTHER NEWS....this:

The “Isms” and the Election

“I don't pick Hillary because she is a woman and I am a woman. I don't pick Barack because he is black and I am black. I pick Barack because he is a man of substance." -Alice Thomas, law professor at Howard University

This moment in time is historical indeed: a black man is running against a white woman, vying for the title of “democratic presidential candidate.” On the republican end of the stick sits John McCain, a 72 year old white man with George W. Bush patting him on the back. For the first time in history, it is possible that an African-American or a woman may rule the United States. Are sexism and racism visible in this election? So far, little has been said, at least by the media, on this topic. Yet, both “isms” are alive and well. As an article in the Washington Post, A Vote of Allegiance, questions: “Sexism and racism—which ism is deeper?”

One must consider the serious implications of this question. Yes, racism and sexism still exist, and to a certain degree, are playing a part in the current presidential race. How many tee-shirts have you seen proclaiming: “Life’s a bitch, don’t vote for one?” What about the “Obama and Osama: different names, same B.S.” tee-shirts? I personally have seen far more sexist comments about Hilary than racist comments about Obama. In fact, until I did some digging on the internet about five minutes ago, I had not seen any at all. I know that they exist, however, and am greatly saddened by this.

It is also important to note that Obama is not the first African-American to run for president of the United States, nor is Clinton the first woman to run (See a list.) Yet, many have argued that this is “the first time that is plausible” for a woman or African-American to “actually become president.”

As Alice Thomas says, my loyalty (and my vote) will go to the person whom I feel is best equipped to make wise decisions concerning the future of my country. I am not taking skin color, gender, or even age, into consideration when placing my vote. I wish more of my fellow Americans would do the same.

Disturbing McCarthy's Ghost

It's Easter, and that means things are quiet on the political sphere. Turns out lawmakers have families, too, and enjoy spending time with them on important holidays. I'm as surprised as you are.

However, the Clinton and Obama camps managed to snipe at each other today despite the festivities, this time through two of their more visible surrogates. As Laura mentioned in her post today, President Clinton made a remark which may or may not have questioned Obama's patriotism. It might have gone unnoticed were it not for retired Air Force general Merrill McPeak, co-chairman of Obama's campaign, who responded, "As one who for 37 years proudly wore the uniform of our country, I'm saddened to see a president employ these tactics. He of all people should know better because he was the target of exactly the same kind of tactics...I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it."

Conjuring up the specter of the infamous Senator McCarthy is sure to get any Democrat's blood boiling, and the Clinton camp was quick to call the general's accusations "absurd."

After reading over Clinton's comments, it seems to me that McPeak's interpretation might be a bit of a stretch. The President may simply have been talking about the upcoming general election, and his "two people who love this country" might have referred to McCain and either Democrat. But it's hard to say for certain.

Frankly,it doesn't seem like much of a big deal, but well, it's Easter. Slow news days turn minor spats into verbal wars. We probably haven't heard the last of this one.

Since Sundays are typically slow days, I'm going to be posting a political cartoon of the week in this space each Sunday. As I was writing this post, the news broke that the Iraq War has claimed its 4,000th American casualty, just a few days past its fifth anniversary. That's in addition to the many non-American soldiers who have given their lives, as well as the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.

In light of that grim milestone, I went with this one (click to enlarge.)

Obama’s “Pastor Disaster” vs Clinton's Hindering Husband

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who presided over Barack Obama’s wedding, and the baptizing of both his children, has reeled Senator Obama into a serious ring of controversy with his outspoken opinions. Wright’s most controversial comment, perhaps, was “God damn America.”

In response, Obama replied: "As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Obama delivered his “pastor disaster” speech with great enthusiasm and passion. The quality of his speeches, thus far, has been deemed equal to that of Kennedy or Regan. But, was his speech powerful enough to earn his supporter’s forgiveness?

Meanwhile, Hilary Clinton is fighting another battle of her own. Last Friday, Bill Clinton said: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Some people interpreted this comment as a blatant attack of Obama’s patriotism. Clinton, too, must now defend herself against what a loved one has said.

Who said what never ceases to fascinate the media.

Interesting Link: U.S. Politics Today, a through archive of political headlines and news

“Imprudent Curiosity” Gets State Department Employees Fired

Thursday, March 20, it was reported that Senator (and hopeful presidential candidate) Barack Obama’s passport was breached. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, apologized to Obama by telephone Thursday morning. Soon after, the state department announced that the passport files of Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton and Senator John McCain had also been breached. Rice then placed apologetic phone calls to Clinton and McCain as well. Thursday evening, the State Department announced that two contact employees were fired, and a third “disciplined” for examining the passport files. Spokesperson spokesman Sean McCormack said that the employees were motivated by "imprudent curiosity."
A similar scandal took place in 1992, when Bill Clinton’s passport data was also inappropriately accessed.

Interesting Links:

New York Times Online: A Blog from Iraq: an interesting perspective on the war in Iraq, with stunning photographs


“Is Obama a Mac, and Clinton a PC?”: The media is running out of metaphors to use for Clinton and Obama.

The Richardson Endorsement: does it matter?

Happy Good Friday to all who observe it. Happy Purim to all who observe it. Happy Weekend to all who observe weekends. I think that should cover everyone (and if not, what do you have against weekends?)





New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, the only Latino governor in the US, endorsed Barack Obama on Friday. Richardson's endorsement has been long sought-after by both candidates, but Clinton staffers were quick to dismiss the endorsement as irrelevant, noting that a large majority of Latinos had already voted in the primary (and most had gone for Hillary.) You can't help but wonder if Obama wishes Richardson had done this before the Texas primary.

Does the Richardson endorsement matter, then? Opinions vary. Clinton's line is technically correct: the vast majority of the nation's Latinos have already had their say in this primary. Barring a revote in Florida, which has a large and powerful Latino population, the only primary left where the Latino vote is a deciding factor is Puerto Rico. But this logic assumes that Richardson's endorsement only matters to Latinos, which is like saying Obama's candidacy only appeals to blacks. Perhaps more importantly, Richardson is a former Clinton insider who served as Bill Clinton's ambassador to the UN. The implication here could be damning: here is a man who has had an up-close view of how the Clintons do business, and he is siding with their opponent.

The media's role in the endorsement process is crucial, of course. Since public endorsements are really just another type of campaign ad, how much it is reportered -- and how -- is almost as important as the endorsement itself. If the prevailing story turns out to be the Clinton claim that Richardson has endorsed too late, then the impact of Richardson's nod may be minimal. On the other hand, if the narrative ends up being about a former Clintonite going to bat for the other team, it could end up harming Hillary.

There is already talk around the internet about a possible Obama/Richardson ticket. Having Richardson as a running mate would certainly help shore up Obama's spotty support among Latinos. But with the nomination far from won, it's a bit early to be talking about running mates. Still, the speculation, and the endorsement itself, accomplishes one very important objective: to help get the public, and the media, to begin moving away from the damaging Pastor Wright scandal.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Richardson is a superdelegate. So even if the Clinton assessment proves to be correct (which is not unlikely) and the endorsement has no real impact on the polls, it certainly has an effect on the ever-crucial delegate count.

A Comparison of Clinton and Johnson’s Scare Tactics in Campaign Ads

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson sponsored an ad called "Daisy," which featured a child counting flower petals. Then, another voice began to count, but backwards. Suddenly, a mushroom cloud engulfs the screen. This ad struck fear into the hearts of many people, and forced them to consider how much they trusted current presidential candidates to make wise decisions in the face of danger.

Recently, Hilary Clinton ran a similar campaign ad, called "Children," in which images of several sleeping children are shown. Then, a voice declares that something is happening in the world, and that the phone in the White House (“the red phone”) is ringing. The voice ultimately poses the question: “Who do you want to answer that call?” When the image of helpless innocent children is combined the threat of imminent danger, people take notice. After this famous “3 a.m. ad,” aired Clinton, gained more supporters.

In each of these campaign ads, the American dream itself is portrayed as fragile. Fear is a powerful tool, and one that the media often uses to its advantage.


Johnson's "Daisy" Ad
Clinton’s "Children" Ad

Getting the ball rolling.

I'm no good with introductions, so thanks go to Laura for providing a fine one for both of us. But I will reiterate that our intent is to offer a bit of perspective and commentary on current events and how the media reports them. We're hoping to make this blog entertaining and informative, so let us know how we're doing.

At this juncture I should probably point out that the blog is not officially affiliated with Beloit College and any opinions/comments/hilariously inept and embarrassing misstatements are entirely the fault of the author. By the way, Laura and I will be writing our posts independently of one another (though we will occasionally collaborate on choice of subject matter and other details) , so as to provide you with two separate perspectives and two unique writing styles on the same broad topic.

With that out of the way, let's head into today's items. It's day one and there's lots of ground to cover, so I suspect this post will be a bit longer than average:

ITEM ONE: WHY THE MEDIA?

Because it's fascinating. Why is it fascinating? Because we all love it, while at the same time hating its guts. Conservatives hate it for its alleged liberal bias. Liberals hate it for its alleged conservative bias. Others hate it because it reports on feel-good stories about puppies being born more than actual important news. Still others hate it because it has too much actual news and not enough puppies. So until the perfect news-to-puppy-ratio is found, Americans will continue their love-hate relationship with the press. Because while everyone complains about the media, we all consume it relentlessly. Every day the world sees more and more information resources added, and more resources added to scrutinize those resources. And there is always an appetite for more. If the media vanished tomorrow, we'd be beside ourselves. We can't live without information anymore. The news cycle is a part of our lives. But that doesn't mean we can't complain about it. Or that we shouldn't.

Politicians knows this contradiction better than anyone. The press is an absolutly crucial tool for getting their face and message out and into the public consciousness. But it's also searching relentlessly for a scandal, misdeed or gaffe to pounce on. It might save them from obscurity one day and tear them apart the next (and sometimes it does both at once. Bill Clinton would never have been president if the Gennifer Flowers scandal hadn't made him famous.) And of course, the same applies in reverse. The press often take a lot of heat from the people they cover, from the public they serve, and from each other. Yet they need all these people to survive. They even need the criticism. It makes for a great story.

That's why the media is fascinating. It's an endless series of funhouse mirrors, contradictions reflecting contradictions. Come to think of it, this blog could be considered part of the media, too. See what I mean? You can't escape it.



ITEM TWO: FEEDING THE BEAST

All three presidential candidates have accused the press of being unfairly biased against them. Hillary Clinton in particular has made the assertion that the press has given Obama a free pass in the first few months of the campaign. And here's the thing: it has, but that has nothing to do with bias.

See, the modern press has a rather serious problem: it is at the mercy of the ravenous Beast that is the 24-hour news cycle. The Beast must be fed, and only new and interesting stories will do. And at the start of this campaign, Barack Obama, no matter what you thought of him, was unquestionably new and interesting. So there was no real need to delve into his private life, scrutinize his positions or seek out skeletons in his closet. In short, there was no need to go out and look for a story, because Obama HIMSELF was the story. Great speaker. Compelling message. African-American. It writes itself. Obama was the fresh new face on the political landscape, and simply getting to know him was interesting enough to keep the beast satisfied. You could call it his political grace period.

Hillary, of course, was not new to politics or to the press. Her grace period came in 1993, when a glut of "Get to know the new First Lady!" stories introduced her to the nation. She, too, enjoyed a period when she was free of media scrutiny. But those days are long gone, and they do her little good now. Since Hillary is already a known commodity, the media must provide some new information about her each time it reports on her, and they're not really worried if the info makes her look good or bad. Which means closer scrutiny, and less positive press.

But now Hillary and Obama are in the same boat, as this past week officially marked the end of Obama's grace period. It had been brewing for a while now, as the public is now quite familiar with the man and simply saying "Look, everyone! Obama!" is no longer enough to sell papers as it was just two months ago. So the press began digging, and before long Reverend Wright and his infamous "God Damn America" sermon had taken over the news cycle. The honeymoon is officially over.

So yes, Obama did get a bit of a free ride, and no, it was not due to media bias. The media is only biased toward one thing: the Beast, and its continued care and upkeep. While individual news outlets may have their own agendas, the press as a whole is simply out to fill the news cycle, and any interesting story is fair game. Sometimes this setup favors a candidate. Sometimes it doesn't. That's all there is to it.

Obama's been on the Beast's good side for so long that the end of his grace period has got him, in his own words, "shaken up." The real test of his viability as a candidate will come in the next few weeks, as we see how he adapts to this new, less friendly environment. The speech he delivered on Tuesday is a good first step, however.

ITEM THREE: FIVE YEARS AND COUNTING

Five years ago today, the war in Iraq began. I was working at a Blockbuster Video at the time (my first real job) and we had a TV set up by the counter, which was showing news coverage of the event. A woman came up to the counter and, as I was checking out her movie, noticed the CNN logo in the corner of the screen and said without a hint of irony, "You should have Fox News on, so people can see some positive coverage of this war."

Her comment grows more astute with each passing year.

LINKS!

Some people look at the delegate math and say that Hillary is toast. But they're wrong. Actually, Obama is toast.

Meanwhile, America's approval of Bush sinks even lower.

A fascinating photo montage from the New York Times gives us a glimpse of the last five years in Iraq.


Well, I knew the first post would be an unusually long one. Thanks for sticking with me. Things should be a bit more restrained from here on in. Laura will be handling the next post, and we'll switch off in that fashion, posting as much as we can for the foreseeable future. See you in the papers!

"Notes from the Beloit Bubble?"

“The Beloit Bubble” is a famed, imaginary boundary that surrounds the students of Beloit College and disconnects them from the world beyond their campus. Students at Beloit College often complain about the limited information they receive from the outside world. This blog, run by two Beloit College students, has taken on the ambitious goal of popping a tiny hole in the Beloit Bubble.

Through a daily analysis of political stories circulating through the media, and analysis of the media itself, we hope to better inform ourselves, and others, about political happenings, with a special focus on the 2008 presidential election.

We hope that you find our analysis to be intelligent, interesting, and informative. Feel free to leave comments, suggestions, or criticisms on our posts. We would appreciate feedback, and encourage discussion on our posts. If there is an issue that you are interested in, or would like to see us discuss, simply send us an e-mail, or leave us a comment.

“I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.” –Edward Murrow at RTNDA Convention, October 15, 1958