We don’t need an economic savior

The economy is tanking. This is clear to us now. The unemployment rate is at a two-year high, Wall Street took a dive and people are being forced from their homes in record numbers. The housing crisis created a fallout beyond our control and recession is closing in.

Jeannine Aversa, a writer for the Washington AP says, “At the beginning of last year, many economists put the chance of a recession at less than 1-in-3; now an increasing number say 50-50 or even worse. Goldman Sachs, the biggest investment bank on Wall Street, thinks a recession is inevitable this year.”

It’s panic-time people. Not only because of oncoming economic failure but also because some key players in the media are condensing and muddling this issue. The presidential election has the media reverting everything back to the candidates.

When the McLaughlin Group sat down last week to discuss the “financial crunch” with panelists Mort Zuckerman, Eleanor Clift, Monica Crowley and Pat Buchanan, the conversation quickly turned to the nominees.

Zuckerman: Mitt Romney starts your program and he says he’s going to do something about the economy. When he was Governor of Mass. he had 1/2 of one percent increase in employment in the four years he was Governor while the country’s employment went up by 5 1/2 percent. He left the state with the highest unemployment rate of any state in the union. So his words are just phony words. This guy doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Romney does know what he’s talking about he’s misleading…..

I’m hearing a lot about Romney and Clinton and McCain and Edwards. Our economic situation is practically entwined with their platforms. What isn’t being discussed is the Federal Reserve or even Congress and their plans to give us an economic boost. The attention is centered on the candidates and which hopeful we can expect to be our economic “savior.”

Sentiments such as these were echoed in the Michigan primary where Republican candidates learned one thing: focus on the economy. Candidate after candidate shared a stimulus plan and each essentially said something like, “I will cut your taxes, I will eliminate wasteful spending, don’t be scared!”

Well, I am scared. I want something more substantial from these people. Will the invisible hand save us? More war?

I read in the AP that most of our hope is actually riding on the Federal Reserve. By dropping rates, it can act quicker than both the White House and Congress.

“Many economists believe a key rate, now at 4.25 percent, could fall by as much as one-half of a percentage point. Such a cut would lower the rates that are charged to millions of consumers and businesses for many different types of loans,”Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said.

Reports say our economy is crawling right now, but it isn’t tail spinning.

There is hope we can get through this turbulence and I think what the American people want is to hold up a face to this issue and feel reassured. But the media should NOT be reflecting this. Right now, all I’m hearing is about these candidate’s rescue packages. I think these fears will help fuel campaigns, but most of the action isn’t even in their hands. Many of the solutions I’ve heard are temporary economic boosts at best.

Before this evolves into a bigger crisis than it is in order to advance some of these candidates, we need to get a scope of this issue from beyond the candidate’s perspective. It’s up to the media to move the spotlight.

Is his legacy salvagable?

As his presidency winds down and the media reflects on the last half decade, people are curious as to what Bush’s legacy will be.

It seems that most presidents’ wrapping up their terms in office, tend to shift attention to the Middle-East. Presidents’ like to end on a high note and a peaceful “solution” to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict encourages positive media coverage. Clinton and Bush Sr. did not pay serious attention to it until the last few weeks of Presidency, when time was running out.

Bush, whose catastrophic war will not inspire a pretty picture in the history books, was next to push for peace… and a chance to salvage that legacy.

We’re seeing today is that it probably won’t work.

Eight days ago, the Israeli Prime Minister told the U.S. that negotiation of an independent Palestinian state would be “very hard to reach” until rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip ceased.

As reported in the Spokesman Review, “Gaza is in the hands of the militant Hamas organization that the United States and Israel consider a terrorist group. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president whom Bush is to meet with in the West Bank today, has no control over Gaza or Hamas.”

Bush said he is standing ready to help but the U.S. will not take a hands-on role. He did offer some advice though: “Bush said he had come to push both sides toward that goal, however, saying Jewish settler outposts in the West Bank “ought to go” and that no part of Palestinian lands can be a “safe haven for terrorists.”

A political peace-machine he is not. Time is dwindling down and a lot of the tough negotiations and political compromises still need to be dealt with.

If peace is unreachable, what then can we expect the media to report about his legacy?

I think that with our current mess of American foreign policy and fears of economic recession, people are deserting his party in droves and looking at some of the change candidates, such as Obama and Huckabee. People are disillusioned and there is no doubt the press will report that.

Is Bush even concerned about his legacy? Bush’s trip around the Middle-East was his most ambitious undertaking yet, but it was too little too late. I think if Bush truly cared about his legacy and his affect on the American people, he would have made these decisions much earlier.

Future Media Effects, Current Worry

I’ve been worried lately about the state of journalism. Specifically newspapers, which are struggling in a society where interaction and feedback are the norm. Community newspapers and radio have found certain niche marketing but major newspapers are taking a hit (The Huston Chronicle down 3.9%, The L.A. Times down 6.5%, The Chicago Tribune down 6.6%, and so on).

A while ago, I stumbled over a website that envisions the media scape in the year 2014. The forecast is pretty bleak:

I think with the introduction of blogging (which I’m only now discovering) anyone could be a journalist. A teacher at the University of Washington asked me a few days ago if I thought anyone could be a “good” journalist. I said, “No, no, ethics, story structure, etc.” She argued that if everyone could be a journalist, there would be a more democratic society. The public would no longer be passive consumers, but actively investing themselves in the news gathering and democratic processes.

That was a good argument. But, I just can’t imagine a society without editors, objectivity and accuracy. I think perhaps if everyone was a journalist, there’d be less of the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality, and there’d be more coverage of what’s going right in society. I also think though, that if everyone sought out their own news sources, they would miss things that are important.

Walter Lippman (who I admit was pretty elitist) once said, “Democratic citizens’ understand the world through stereotypes; we need a democracy where experts guide the opinion.” This may be true. It may be important for society to have people to tell them what to tune in to, as very few people have time to keep up on these issues.

Transversely, Woodrow Wilson said, “Citizens that just read the paper and respond are not participating in public opinion; they must be deliberative.” There is truth to this as well. I think people today are questioning the objectivity norm. Personally, I wonder if I can receive the full story if an event is reported on without criticism. I think criticism allows for context and bloggers are completing this cycle faster and better than conventional newspaper reporters.

I’m pretty torn on this issue. Clearly a world dominated by Epic (see video above) is not ideal but it is plausible. Our media is driven by profits and since 1996, media consolidation hasn’t shown any signs of slowing. This is true for all media markets, newspaper, radio and Internet. Internet specifically is supposed to be our most democratic medium yet, because it allows for all voices to be heard. However, corporations are asserting control by paying search engines to list their company first.

The Internet is still new enough to leave everyone uncertain of its future effects and possible domination of the media. As a journalism student, I worry that most of what I’m learning in college now could prove useless in five years. Media habits and media outlets appear to be shifting. In the future, it’s a possibility that journalists will not just be writing but gathering video, audio, blogging, etc. Like super journalists. I realize it is important to embrace this new technology, but there is also comfort in print media. At least at this point in time, I know what it is capable of and how it works.

Only in Washington, Kucinich Wins Straw Polls

Clinton comes in fourth… in the Washington State straw polls.

In a bizarre twist of events, Dennis Kucinich, who failed to finish top four in Iowa and failed to gain at least five percent in a national or New Hampshire poll, is Washington’s pick for the “practice vote.”

The votes were tallied from November 29th through December 14, with Edwards taking second, followed by Obama and Clinton.

Let’s not be fooled here. Straw polls are anything but scientific. They usually involve online or phone polling, with little emphasis on statistical precision. Yet supporters frequently use this data to boast the success of their candidates. Kucinich’s website, for example, is showered with comments of his nation-wide third place finish.

Other low-rated candidates, such as Republican Rep. Ron Paul, are also jumping on this data, relying on the results to fuel their weak campaigns.

As much of a three day sensation this is, it will probably mean absolutely nothing in the upcoming election. Little of this translates into similar success among the public opinion. It does appear that the organization of Kucinich’s election committee is churning out good results. Kucinich is clearly out-webbing his opponents. It also helps that his Washington meet-up group happens to be fourth largest in the nation.
If winning straw polls was important, Kucinich would have one hell of a strategy in Washington State. In reality, it’s the equivalent of tossing a pebble into the ocean.