Here's the image we talked about in 2305 yesterday

It flew by my facebook feed this morning so I figured I should post it here.

Here's background on the photo op.

He was arguing against proposals made in the Senate that would have limited his direct control of the personnel in the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Democrats were concerned that this was an attempt to limit civil service protections for federal employees. Republicans wanted to ensure the entire agency was directly controllable by the president.

Images like this are argued to be able to overcome negative coverage by the national media.

Click here for a 2004 assessment of W. Bush's relationship with the press.

For Obama's click on these. Apparently its a bit tense:

- Why reporters are down on President Obama.
- The Presidency and the Press.
- The president and the press.
- In Obama’s war on leaks, reporters fight back.
- Is Obama at war with journalists?
- Obama Administration Has Gone To Unprecedented Lengths To Thwart Journalists, Report Finds.

And for today's 2305

Lincoln's Media Strategy.
- There's nothing new about president's manipulating how the press covers them.

The Bumpkinification of the Midterm Elections.
-We're just like you - and not even that smart.

Why Is It Illegal to Not Vote in Most of Latin America?
- More than a few nations make voting compulsory.

If the Republicans win the Senate...
- More gridlock? Or might there be incentives to actually govern?

Newspapers may not be so resilient

From the Washington Post, another story pointing out the difficulties newspapers face in the digital age:

Earlier this year, Rupert Murdoch's media empire -- spanning television, newspapers, and Web sites across America and the Commonwealth -- split into two. Investors had pushed for the change, figuring that the broadcasting assets could do better without being shackled to the financially challenged publishing side. Murdoch finally acquiesced, but put a positive spin on it, declaring that the future of newspapers was bright.

Well, maybe, but there's not much evidence of it yet. The resulting television-focused company, 21st Century Fox, earlier this month reported strong revenue growth with profits hampered only by new investments in a sports network designed to rival ESPN. And Monday, the severed Newscorp disappointed analysts' already low expectations, with revenue declining 3 percent overall after poor advertising sales and a particularly huge drop in its Australian newspapers.

"We collectively recognize the need to evolve," said chief executive Robert Thomson, on the company's earnings call, talking up how the company is making progress on mobile and introducing new subscription models.

Speaking of photographs . . .

Here's the back story of this iconic image from the Vietnam War. It won the photographer a Pulitzer Prize, ruined the career of the general who fired the shot, and helped turn public opinion against the war. It also encouraged the military to rethink how much freedom to grant journalists in war zone. This lead to the decision to "embed" journalists with battalions in recent conflicts.

Are reporters taking Twitter too seriously?

Brendan Nyhan takes campaign reporters to task for giving too much - or any - attention to superficial news events like the etch a sketch comment about Romney or the recent claim that his wife has never worked a day in her life. He is especially concerned that reporters pick up rumors sent via Twitter as being true without fact checking.

He says we are the silly season.

Perhaps all of this is fostered by technology that allows for messages to get out quickly and business models that depend on this speed - regardless of whether it is accurate.

From Philly.com: Obama, Romney camps ready for digital warfare

The full range of social media will apparently be used in the campaigns of Romney and Obama, as well as in other races. This is new territory.

Now that Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign and the race is on between President Obama and Mitt Romney, an unprecedented media war has begun.

We've seen big media battles before. But in money, in woman- and man-hours, and in technical and strategic sophistication, this will be the biggest ever. Especially in Pennsylvania and other swing states, you'll see television ads from both camps, and from the semianonymous political action committees that have become the coin of the 2012 realm.

But that's just the visible war.

Underneath and at the edges, simmering around and through that loud clash of money and images, the digital campaigns will lock horns.

They'll come to you in e-mails, text messages, classic mail . . . and in real live human beings knocking on your door.

In a close election, as this promises to be, digital could be decisive. Just ask Ann Romney. Better yet, tweet her: @AnnDRomney. (More on that later.)

Or ask Andrew Rasiej, social-media campaign strategist, founder of Personal Democracy Media, cofounder of TechPresident. He says 2008 was "the beginning of social media on the political scene. But as of 2012, the digital campaign is on steroids."

What's the difference betwen Twitter and a magazine?

Plenty. In this TNR piece, the author shows how a Tweet from legal analysts Jeffery Toobin - that the individual mandate was doomed based on his analysis of the oral argument - conditioned the reactions of most other news outlets. A more measured response to the arguments just published in the New Yorker is getting less traction. This tells us something. Short superficial messages drown out longer thoughtful ones.

In 2301 we will be discussing the press soon. Technology matters. 

Supreme Court unlikely to allow cameras in the court for the health care challenge.

A not surprising commentary from the NYT.

The dreaded You Tube moment

Here's an interesting read - it touches on points made in 2301 when we discussed the consequences of new media technology, in this case You Tube. The author argues that Republican candidates are mindful that their performances in the debates can lead to unwitting viral recordings that can undermine a candidate's appeal. Rick Perry's "oops" moment took off and had a life of its own since it was easily captured and distributed.

This has had an impact on how candidates perform: "No one has been more cautious in debates than Romney, the field's nominal front-runner. The former Massachusetts governor has worked to draw little attention to himself, choosing his words carefully when answering questions and often refusing to take the bait if a rival tries to goad him or get under his skin."

The story points out an important contemporary reality: ""The potential army of detractors or amplifiers has expanded exponentially, which makes the candidates more sensitive . . . Now, everyone's a publisher and everyone's a distributor. It makes the candidates realize there is no safe harbor anymore."

C-Span wants to televise the Supreme Court oral arguments on health care

Here's the letter sent to the Chief Justice.

The NYT agrees they should.

Banned: Let There Be Light

Director John Huston produced a 1946 film about returning WW2 veterans with psychological trauma. The Defense Department suppressed it and did not allow it to be shown for 30 years. Why?

''Let There Be Light'' is a good, slickly made documentary about the treatment of psychoneurotic combat veterans at Mason General Hospital on Long Island. The treatment involved the thenrevolutionary use of truth drugs and hypnosis and, though the movie tells us more than once that the cures we see will have to be supported by long, intensive psychiatric care, the impression given and even encouraged by the film is of a series of miraculous cures.

In the late 40's, the Army seemed to feel that the film would scare off potential recruits. In his recently published autobiography, ''An Open Book,'' Mr. Huston reports the Army justified its censorship on the grounds that a public showing of the film would invade the privacy of the soldiers. He also reports, in passing, that he photographed some patients being given shock treatment . . .

Supreme Court Approval Rating Dips to 46%

Supreme Court Approval Rating Dips to 46%   

All institutions seem to be taking hits, now the Supreme Court is no different - but its opinion is still higher than that of Congress or the presidency.

From the Atlantic Five: Ex-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr wonders if it is time for the Supreme Court to allow its proceedings to be televised:

"Cameras in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court are long overdue," writes Kenneth Starr in The New York Times. Citizens and school groups constantly line up outside the court for hours to see it in action. "Many who stand in these lines and endure all-night waits will be disappointed: space in the magnificent courtroom is very tight."  Most Americans will never even try to see it. "

'Equal justice under law' is the inscription on the face of the court building. It is time that we the people had equal access to the process by which that justice is meted out." Improved transparency would advance our nation's democratic goals of allowing the people to see how the government works. "Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation," and opening up public viewing would only help the decline in civic literacy.

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's fear is that televising the oral arguments would introduce 'the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the television.'" But sound recordings are already available. New forms of media from newspapers to radios have long been feared "for demagogic potential" before being accepted into the mainstream. "The idea that cameras would transform the court into 'Judge Judy' is ludicrous," Starr says. Thankfully, the "old guard" is losing the battle.

The newest justice, Elena Kagan, recently said, "If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating." "Just so," says Starr. "If the justices won't open the courtroom doors to cameras -- proxies for the public eye -- of their own accord, then Congress has the capacity and the duty to take action.

Ruper Murdoch's Influence on Governing

The recent phone hacking scandal seems to have open the flood gates and accusations about Murdoch and his businesses are piling on. People who he once intimidated seem to be no longer so.

Here are a couple stories detaining his ability to influence government figures.

A snippte from Howard Kurtz: the troops regularly received marching orders. “For a long time the Clintons were targets,” he said. “You couldn’t get enough dirt on the Clintons. Then Bill Clinton made a rapprochement with Murdoch, sucked up to him in the run-up to Hillary running” for the Senate in 2000.

“Then one day it was, ‘You can’t write anything bad about the Clintons.’ We had to kill stuff all the time. It filtered down from Murdoch. In the meetings we’d be told, ‘No way, mate.’”

And Alex Massie: The tabloids prefer winners to losers. That was one reason that they soured on John Major and backed Blair. When Gordon Brown succeeded Blair, he attempted to curry favor with News International. His wife Sarah guest-edited an edition of the News of the World's magazine; and the Browns hosted Elisabeth Murdoch, Rupert's daughter, and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International and onetime News of the World editor, at Chequers, the prime minister's country mansion.

And here's one of a member of the House of Lords - a movie producer - that has worked to limit Murdoch's influence:

Years ago this prodigal filmmaker gave up the business and, elevated to the House of Lords, took up two causes close to his heart: education and communications. When Rupert Murdoch announced his bid to take total control of BSkyB, the British satellite-TV giant, Lord Puttnam was among the first to see how menacing this move was to the diversity of media ownership in the U.K.

But in a political climate where prime ministers—of both the Labour and Tory persuasion—walked in fear of the whim of Rupert Murdoch and where so-called regulators moved the goalposts every time Murdoch found them in his path, raising a red flag against Murdoch’s empire was about as popular as proposing the abolition of the monarchy.

Nonetheless, David Puttnam has three qualities that come in handy when waging a campaign against overmighty barons: the ability to marshal an argument with irrefutable facts, to present them with passion—and a lack of fear about the consequences. As we now know in gruesome detail, opposing the Murdoch empire can attract some odious countermeasures.

A Few Stories I'm Missing

I'm trying to find the best way to frame a few recent stories regarding the media and its interrelation with other institutions.

One is the Casey Anthony trial, most importantly the fact that this was a trial that was conducted both in a trial court and in the court of public opinion. As we know, the verdicts in each diverged. What does this tell us about the nature of information made available to a jury in a trial versus the public through media sources?

A second is the DSK accusations and the entire concept of a perp walk, where police are able to parade a person arrested for, but not formally accused of, a crime. What's the point of it? Is it a gratuitous display of power? Might it bias a potential jury pool against a potential trial defendant.

A third is the entire Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal. There is so much going on in this I don't know where to begin, but I'll get an angle soon. Be prepared to field potential assignment questions about these.

Club for Growth Warns Lugar, Hatch on Debt Ceiling

From RollCall, a great explanation why moderate Republicans are falling in line against compromise on the debt ceiling:

The conservative Club for Growth issued a warning shot Monday in the home states of Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).

The deep-pocketed group bought air time for advertisements criticizing the records of the Senators — both of whom are vulnerable in their respective GOP primaries next year. The spot intends to serve as a warning to Hatch and Lugar not to vote to raise the debt ceiling without a strong spending reduction package, including spending caps and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

. . .

Lugar and Hatch — the two most senior Republicans in the Senate — will likely have tough primary challenges next year. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has announced he will challenge Lugar, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz indicated he will soon jump into the race against Hatch. The Utah contest would likely be decided at a statewide convention of party activists.

The club already expressed interest in supporting Chaffetz last month, when its president, former Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), declared, “Run, Jason, Run” in a press release. The club also has met with Mourdock.

This fits with a handful of topics we cover in class - both 2301 and 2302. For 2301 its a great examples of the sort of strength interest groups - especially business groups -- have on the political process. It shows how well heeled groups can put pressure on members of Congress not only by airing negative ads, but also by recruiting candidates to run against incumbents in primaries. Primary elections - as we mention in 2301 - tend to be dominated by extremes of either party, and pull party members to the sides with them. To compete successfully, the incumbents have to start voting in a way that will not be used against them in the primary. When we discuss elections we suggest that primary elections, along with gerrymandering have led to the party polarization we see today. This is a great example of this dynamic at work.

The point for 2302 is similar but in reverse. With the increased costs of campaigns, candidates become beholden to certain groups, and access to further campaign cash becomes something they can dangle before the member.

From the Hill: FCC chairman agrees to strike Fairness Doctrine from rule books

This is huge news. Republicans have been pushing for this change for years:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said his agency will remove the Fairness Doctrine from the rule books in response to a recent request from House Republicans.

"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote in a letter Monday to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

"I look forward to effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the process can be completed in the near future."

Genachowski has frequently voiced his opposition to the rule, which required broadcasters to cover controversial public issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC.

The commission stopped enforcing the rule in 1987 after concluding it was unconstitutional, but in recent years some Democrats have suggested reviving the policy in response to the increasingly partisan nature of cable news.

From Salon: Welcome to Herman Cain's moment

Salon wonders if the recent rise of support for unlikely presidential candidate Herman Cain is due to recent changes in the media environment:

That Cain could rise so high in the polls so early in the process certainly speaks to the weakness of the current GOP field, and also to the unique appeal of his own story and message to Obama era Republicans (as Alex Pareene explained yesterday). But it also illustrates how significantly the online world and cable news has changed presidential politics.

. . . . It's infinitely easier for someone who would have previously been deemed a fringe candidate to gain exposure (and the credibility that comes with it) today. In Fox News, Republicans have found a cable news home. Unlike CNN 15 years ago, Fox needs a deep supply of Republican characters to keep its audience happy, so there's plenty of room for Herman Cain, and many others. Well-established blogs and conservative news sites can introduce and popularize new Republican faces and ideas overnight. Back in 1995, Keyes delivered countless speeches that mesmerized rooms with a few dozen Republican voters in them. If he was lucky, the speech would be televised by C-Span, bringing his message to a slightly wider world of conservatives. And once audiences watched the speech, that was it. There was no follow-up appearances on  "Hannity" or "Fox and Friends," no uploading it to YouTube for others to see, no Googling Keyes' name and finding a trove of other speeches, videos and television appearances. In a world of viral videos and 24-hour cable news, the Alan Keyes of 1995 might have made the early charge we're now seeing from Cain.

Iconic Photograph Censored.

Hasidic Paper Removes Hillary Clinton From Osama Picture.

Selling the Texas Budget Cuts

A noted conservative Texas interest group launches an ad campaign promoting the proposed budget cuts.

The Fed Holds a News Conference

This is late news, but it seems to mark a change in how the Federal Reserve faces the public.

Commentary.

Its been pointed out that the chairman essentially threw his hands up and stated they can do nothing to address unemployment and GDP growth.