A Crazy Thought: Sanity Should Prevail

While watching Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity," I was struck by attention paid to the idea that many people are fed up with extreme views and the fanning of their flames by the 24 hour news cycle. It is logical that we the people would be wanting to stick a fork in the Tea Party and say it is done. However there is the small matter that the issues they have raised are not necessarily all "conservative."

For instance, the effectiveness of government is not the providence of extreme conservatives, many progressives and moderates are just as frustrated by the political processes of government. Regardless of whether people think that government should be big or small, I think the point we all agree on is: it should work. Frankly big ticket items that Congress debates like wars and health care should raise hackles--they are incredibly expensive. The difference in wars and health care though is that we have waged war for a long time and the return on the investment is not always so hot. How much will health care end up costing? Well, depending on the election, we may not ever know, despite having a couple of model programs that the government runs (The VA and Medicare) that actually work pretty darn good.

Is our disdain of government limited to the majority party du jour or the fact that regardless of which party is in power, the ability to make laws that serve people over other more monied interests is questionable. Whether you fear corporations, millionaires, or labor unions' influence, the major point is that all American people are disadvantaged by decisions that are not intended to be in our best interest.

The hope that I take from seeing thousands of people turning out for a pseudo-political rally is that we realize the joke is on us. We realize that our government is only as good as those who represent us. Fortunately, many politicians are reasonable and decent people, despite what the 24 hour news cycle tells us. It is true that there are some folks with rather extreme views representing people who also share these views, but most are people who want to do the job they were sent to do, but are isolated from the moderating voices.

If pressed, I'll bet most would agree that if they could be assured that they could be elected without taking PAC money, they would--as long as other men or women would do it too. If pressed, I'll bet none of them would add "pork" to bills, if the folks back home wouldn't throw them out if they didn't take care of pet projects. Politicians, like the rest of us, use the tools at their disposal. Also, if politics could be moved into the realm of the non-partisan and parties had less control over who the "strong" candidates are, perhaps we could expect more reasonable people to seek offices. Perhaps, if more third party candidates ran, a more even keeled government might be formed.

But who am I kidding? Jon Stewart, I'm not. I'm a guy in Iowa who has witnessed sausage being made for a little too long. And as soon as this mid-term election comes and goes...here come the Caucuses. Whatever end of the spectrum you are on, be prepared to be used for photo opportunities or join the fray. There is sanity in it--somewhere.

Michael Jackson, Inc. Lives!

Last night, as tributes to the late performer Michael Jackson covered mainstream media, I observed that the "man" was not the point of any talking heads' discussions. Michael Jackson the "brand" was. As a phenomenon, there are very few that can parallel Michael Jackson. He was arguably the most successful artist of his generation. In terms of record sales, Pepsi and other product endorsements, and ownership of song rights, he truly was the "King of Pop."

He was an industry unto himself. Rag media, legal eagles, and paparazzi were fueled by the insatiable thirst that the public has for celebrity and the cashing in thereof. And Jackson himself was quite savvy about his brand recognition, including planting stories such as sleeping in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber and purchasing the Elephant Man's bones, and performing at the half-time show of the Super Bowl for 137 million captivated people at the game and at home. His artistic temperament and business acumen combined with his necessarily reclusive lifestyle created demand for all things Michael Jackson. For him, it also must have created a dissonance between Michael Jackson the personality and the person.

Whoever Michael Jackson was is gone now. Philanthropist or pedophile-- angel or devil--saint or sinner? We will never really know the rest of the story. We can be assured that his life will be picked apart by those buzzards who stand to profit from telling his tale.

Michael Jackson, Inc. is open for business and family members, former employees, and biographers will cash in on his likeness. The media will rewrite and reinvent his legacy for a public whose fickle nature embraces both scorn and redemption in equal parts. Like all icons before him, he will be reborn-- "new and improved."

As for me, I will genuinely miss the ambassador of goodwill that Michael Jackson represented to those living in poverty, hunger, and with HIV/AIDS. I will miss his showmanship and creativity. He was a person who lived like his famous moonwalk dance, giving the impression he was ahead of us and, at the same time, letting us know his time was cemented in the past.

Half Court Press: Edwards Now Odd Man Out

The media has done a wonderful job of covering John Edwards since Iowa--NOT!--So says FAIR.

As many of the lesser supported candidates in Iowa experienced, if you are not number 1 or 2, you are not in the conversation.

And, in the hurry to move the conversation from three top candidates to a race to coronate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, there is no room for a third.

The highlight of the Q & A peiod in South Carolina was when Edwards was asked about why he doesn't get as much media coverage as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"I've been trying that for a year and it hasn't worked yet," said an exasperated Edwards. "It's a tough challenge, you know."

He then pointed to the media. "There they are," he said. "Talk to them."

The Project for Excellence in Media reported that from the git go, Edwards has received much less coverage than the media-driven machines that HRC and BHO have put together.

Is it because he challenges the corporations that hold the keys to the executive washrooms for major media? That certainly can be seen as one story line. More likely, media will ignore him unless he wins a highly touted primary.

Edward's Campaign senior advisor, Joe Trippi said "The more the press continues to focus on these two people [Obama and Clinton] and how its all about them, the rest of the country is saying please tell us there is somebody else," Trippi said.

Progs and Cons: Media Voices in Iowa

Media Matters reports that when it comes to the media, Iowa is more Red than Blue. Fortunately in the Iowa City area, it is fairly divided when it comes to syndicated columnists, but not so in Des Moines and elsewhere. Check out the full report here.

IOWA MEDIA: Daily Newspapers at a Glance

- In Iowa, there are 37 daily newspapers with a total circulation of 589,975.

- Conservative syndicated columnists appear a total of 62 times per week in Iowa newspapers. Centrist columnists appear a total of 10 times, while progressive columnists appear a total of 40 times.[1]

- Taking newspaper circulation into account, these columnists have the potential to reach Iowa readers a total of 2,671,629 times each week.

- Nationally syndicated conservative columnists account for 48 percent of the column impressions in Iowa, while nationally syndicated progressive columnists account for only 40 percent of the column impressions.[2]

- Those conservative columnists reach Iowa readers 225,066 more times than their progressive counterparts.

- The top nationally syndicated columnists published regularly in Iowa consist of five conservatives, one centrist, and four progressives.


[1] These figures account for columnists appearing in multiple papers; if a particular columnist is in five separate papers, he or she is counted in these figures five times.

[2] Similar to the advertising term “ad impressions,” “column impressions” counts the number of copies of each column that appears in print.

So Much For the Liberal-Bias on the Opinion Page

According to a report by Media Matters,

"Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.

In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

Though they have suffered slow but steady declines in readership over the last couple of decades, newspapers remain in many ways the most important of all news media. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that each copy of a weekday paper is read by an average of 2.1 adults, while each Sunday paper is read by an average of 2.5 adults,3 pushing total newspaper readership for daily papers to more than 116 million and Sunday papers to more than 134 million. This means that some columnists reach tens of millions of readers, and one, conservative George Will, actually reaches more than 50 million.

Furthermore, newspapers are the preferred news medium of those most interested in the news. According to a 2006 Pew Research Center study, 66 percent of those who say they follow political news closely regularly read newspapers, far more than the number who cite any other medium.4 And an almost identical proportion of those who say they "enjoy keeping up with the news" -- more than half the population -- turn to newspapers more than any other medium. These more aware citizens are in turn more likely to influence the opinions of their families, friends, and associates.

Syndicated newspaper columnists have a unique ability to influence public opinion and the national debate. And whether examining only the top columnists or the entire group, large papers or small, the data presented in this report make clear that conservative syndicated columnists enjoy a clear advantage over their progressive counterparts."