Questions for People in Power

[raizin]

please ask Senator Maria Cantwell why she is a homewrecker and why she thinks she deserves another 6 years in office. cunt

[Summa]

Is this going to be recorded? Would be interesting to hear it ourselves after its done. You could suggest this to ur superiors if it isnt, because you can further analyze it after the discussion. Please get a copy

I actually asked about this when we went to the seattle times and komo4. I have a dvr, but I likely won't be able to use it. If you record someone you have to legally inform them (in this regard...it doesn't qualify under the patriot act). If you inform them that they are being recorded, they tend to back into talking points and become far more tentative. We decided that we would yield better results if we didn't record it and were perceived less as reporters and more as inferior college students. Their guard will be down a bit more if we are not perceived as threatening in any way.

@Squeezer: thanks for that question, it will pair well with my questions surrounding "game frame" journalism.

@Epi: So you want to know if the 24 hour news cycle and "gotcha" journalism have pigeon holed politicians into making decisions that save face and yield short term minimal gain, but will get them re-elected rather than the tough decision that yields long term optimal results. And also about how much crow they have to eat from their party, vs. how much independent work and voting they do? I think that 2nd one would be nice for a senator, but wouldn't yield much from a house rep.

I suppose I could answer that 2nd one for you. I may try to ask it, but no guarantees. From what I have read of the Supreme Court cases and the general opinions of Republicans and Democrats surrounding the issue of "Express Advocacy" ads and then "Issue Advocacy" ads (stuff like switfboat veterans for truth), if I were to ask your question to a Dem, he/she would fully support it. If I were to ask it to a Rep, they would be entirely against it. The conservative branch of the Supreme Court and Congress has a belief that money=speech, and by putting caps on money you are putting caps on speech, which is against the 1st amendment. People like Justice John Paul Stevens do not believe the money=speech, and that is a big party division line.

[Summa]

please ask Senator Maria Cantwell why she is a homewrecker and why she thinks she deserves another 6 years in office. cunt

when we were at the seattle times, they were working on a story about her having an affair with a married man, but they didn't have enough evidence to run it credibly yet. be on the watch for it though...the guy is some big political figure i believe. and i think we would get walked out on and banned if i called her a cunt.

[raizin]

Also ask any (D) from WA why they ran the last 4 years of campaigns on NOT RAISING TAXES, but so far during the general assembly they have done exactly the opposite.

Ask what there fucking problem is with my gun collection.

Ask why they where so against making money with the building of a nascar track that would have been 70% paid for by a private company and be publicly ran.

[kthx]

I'm not sure why you think politicians are just supposed to be a mouthpiece for their constituency but it isn't the case. If it were our country would have turned to shit 200 years ago. America is a republic, not a democracy, because the framers specifically didn't want majority constituencies to dictate government. Politicians are accountable to their constituency, that's not the same as doing whatever the majority of them want.



Yeah it's a good thing I'm told when someone flip flops. I would never want anyone admitting a poor decision they made in the past by changing their mind. Stay the course, even if it's straight to hell, I always say.



1) Corporations are still banned from direct contributions to candidates. Source, under "Prohibited Contributions"

2) The same ban that limited corporate spending on political speech banned union spending as well. Source

3) The law doesn't treat a corporation as a collection of individuals in most senses. If it did, then depending on the number of individuals said to make up that corporation, they could donate the maximum individual amount multiplied by individuals. This would be retarded.

1. I don't think you intended to mean it this way, but do you mean the country would be destroyed as in a multitude of blacks who still think they deserve reparations for slavery even though none of them have been slaves, a bunch of Mexicans who illegally voted and were helped by an organization that Obama worked for, and a bunch of hippie fucktard liberals who don't have jobs and want more money in welfare and foodstamps to eat organic veggies and meats, and a generation of kids educated in a system that makes them literally retarded thanks to schools teaching them how to pass tests instead of actually teaching them to be intelligent adults all voted for the worst president in the history of the US? Maybe you are right, but when 70% of America doesn't want something, you just don't do it none the less.

2. It depends if you flip flop because you rethought the issue or you received a kickback, a future appointed job, or get money from a higher up politician. I think even you aren't stupid enough to try arguing that.

3. The limit on corporations donating as much money as they want to a political party or an individual politician has actually been removed thanks to a very recent (last two months) supreme court ruling that because a corporation is just a group of individuals that it was unconstitutional to stop said group of individuals from donating whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. I think this was thanks to a film maker if I remember correctly who did a documentary on some politician and it was said to be a campaign contribution that was too much for them to receive.

[genocidal]

1. I don't think you intended to mean it this way, but do you mean the country would be destroyed as in a multitude of blacks who still think they deserve reparations for slavery even though none of them have been slaves, a bunch of Mexicans who illegally voted and were helped by an organization that Obama worked for, and a bunch of hippie fucktard liberals who don't have jobs and want more money in welfare and foodstamps to eat organic veggies and meats, and a generation of kids educated in a system that makes them literally retarded thanks to schools teaching them how to pass tests instead of actually teaching them to be intelligent adults all voted for the worst president in the history of the US? Maybe you are right, but when 70% of America doesn't want something, you just don't do it none the less.

2. It depends if you flip flop because you rethought the issue or you received a kickback, a future appointed job, or get money from a higher up politician. I think even you aren't stupid enough to try arguing that.

3. The limit on corporations donating as much money as they want to a political party or an individual politician has actually been removed thanks to a very recent (last two months) supreme court ruling that because a corporation is just a group of individuals that it was unconstitutional to stop said group of individuals from donating whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. I think this was thanks to a film maker if I remember correctly who did a documentary on some politician and it was said to be a campaign contribution that was too much for them to receive.

I'm not going to bite on your red herrings.

1) Sometimes politicians do what they think is good for the country, regardless of kickbacks, liberal children, vegans, hybrid cars, minorities, or anything else you think is bad. That is literally all I was saying. I'm not even saying I think health care is a good idea - just that politicians aren't simply supposed to do what their moron constituency says.

2) Pointless to discuss further.

3) Did you read my sources? Everything I said is true, that's why I sourced it. I'm well aware of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision. You said twice now that corporations can donate to individuals - this is not the case. The court decision only dealt with "electioneering communications", basically privately sponsored ads. It is still illegal for corporations and unions to donate to individual politicians or political parties. So, PACs and other private entities=fair game; direct donations=illegal. This is somewhat of a quandary, and one I imagine will be taken up again by the Court within the next few years.

[Epinephrine]

@Epi: So you want to know if the 24 hour news cycle and "gotcha" journalism have pigeon holed politicians into making decisions that save face and yield short term minimal gain, but will get them re-elected rather than the tough decision that yields long term optimal results.

Yeah. I really wonder if these people think that all of this gotcha journalism is really just a new reality and that it's easy to learn to get by it (much like how politicians of an earlier generation had to learn how to act on TV s on radio and before that how to act in newspapers vs on radio), or if they think that it's something that can't be gotten around. Like it is really ruining democracy?

And also about how much crow they have to eat from their party, vs. how much independent work and voting they do?

I guess this would really work more for senators, so probably the worst question of the three.

[Summa]

Alright, I am leaving to catch a plane in 5 and a half hours. Thank you to those who added questions to my list, and fuck you to those who tried to troll. I will definitely be periodically checking in to see if any more questions pop up, and I will try to give updates while I am over there, but no guarantees. If I am unable to give you guys some live updates, then I will post a big list of the best quotes and questions, and my general impressions of people when I return.

I hope you guys look forward to seeing if we get any results, because I sure do.

[kthx]

I would troll the shitty house members who are about to pass this shitty bill.

[Cops]

Summa, all news organizations regardless if they're print or broadcast pull their stories off the wire services so that's more or less of a moot point. Media in America is sensationalist because that's what people want, the gotcha journalism is bad theater that fuels advertisement dollars. The real problem is that when ratings and dollar signs come first then journalism tends to take a back seat. Short of asking questions that won't get answered and getting the run around from politicians I'm not sure what you're going to accomplish, I do however applaud your effort to at least try to get some of what you want answered. At best you're going to get a politician to admit that he doesn't like the 5-second sound bites and media's inability to tell a real thought provoking story, however short of finding some common ground with these individuals or even getting some lip service I doubt they have the ability or even determination to change media in America.

[Galleleo]

Watch Newswipe with Charlie Brooker, it's awesome

[Summa]

Summa, all news organizations regardless if they're print or broadcast pull their stories off the wire services so that's more or less of a moot point. Media in America is sensationalist because that's what people want, the gotcha journalism is bad theater that fuels advertisement dollars. The real problem is that when ratings and dollar signs come first then journalism tends to take a back seat. Short of asking questions that won't get answered and getting the run around from politicians I'm not sure what you're going to accomplish, I do however applaud your effort to at least try to get some of what you want answered. At best you're going to get a politician to admit that he doesn't like the 5-second sound bites and media's inability to tell a real thought provoking story, however short of finding some common ground with these individuals or even getting some lip service I doubt they have the ability or even determination to change media in America.

there is so much wrong with this that i don't even know where to begin. today news organizations pull everything from the wire because they have no foreign correspondents and they have no investigative arms. to consider yourself an international newspaper when you have 0 foreign correspondents is misrepresentative to your readership, and thus contrary to the media's purpose.

about gotcha journalism. you couldn't be more wrong actually. when i am not in between meetings, reading, and dinner, i will sit down and bombard you with statistics; but here is the summary: the media is appealing to the smaller demographic of consumers with sound clips and gotcha journalism. the majority of people who consume news prefer hard news stories with positive headlines or sentiments (soft news negative comes 2nd). but essentially those who consume news are turned off by the current content of the news and they are beginning to tune out (particularly from broadcast news), and instead of appealing to the largest demographic (those who consume hard news), companies have chosen to try and make media sound more like sports (game-frame) and scandal in order to appeal to what is actually the smaller group.

and btw, we already got results today suck it negative nancy

[Galleleo]

Summa, all news organizations regardless if they're print or broadcast pull their stories off the wire services so that's more or less of a moot point. Media in America is sensationalist because that's what people want, the gotcha journalism is bad theater that fuels advertisement dollars. The real problem is that when ratings and dollar signs come first then journalism tends to take a back seat. Short of asking questions that won't get answered and getting the run around from politicians I'm not sure what you're going to accomplish, I do however applaud your effort to at least try to get some of what you want answered. At best you're going to get a politician to admit that he doesn't like the 5-second sound bites and media's inability to tell a real thought provoking story, however short of finding some common ground with these individuals or even getting some lip service I doubt they have the ability or even determination to change media in America.

[Summa]

i have some readings and a tour tonight, but if i can find the time i will transcribe some of my interviews...questions might be disparate, but quotes are abundant...just got done meeting with google's chief lobbyist....dude didn't blow smoke up our asses surprisingly...also i got on the dan rathers show.

[Summa]

This is the compilation of a couple of the best snippets from a few media interviews we had. I have not had the time to type this shit out. It takes forever. If you want to know who said something, then just ask and I will tell you. This is only 3 interviews edited a bit. If I can find time I will offer up more, but we are getting some quality results. Tomorrow I will be on the hill with a lot of congress. Anyways, here, judge for yourself.

We have read that the public interest is what the public wants, such as more Britney Spears, and what the public needs, such as hard news stories; which do you believe?

“In the book Elements of Journalism we say that it is a false dichotomy. Things they need to know that solves a relevant problem for them is what they want to know.”
“Context makes a huge difference to what is relevant to you.”
“The challenge is making the significant interesting as opposed to 'read this, its important!'”
“It is easy to write about celebrities, humiliation, and hypocrisy are easy to do, but if that's all you do, then you will alienate your audience fast.”

Do you think the media resonates with its audience now?

He commented on internet sites and TV shows and the quantity offered on each. The sites offer instant gratification and you can refer to past articles, but you have to wait for TV shows to come on and you can't reference past ones. Some other things were generally said that I can't read.
“Web pages are more likely to have what people want at the top coupled with a lot of relevant stories. You don't have to worry about sports like newspapers. Sports is covered somewhere in its own section, so you don't need that hook. They will find it.”

Should broadcasters have public interest obligations that include equal representation on all sides?

“The FCC is basically out of the content regulation business.”
“The FCC will not get back into it.”
“Also, there might be more than two sides to a story. It can become difficult to cover all sides, not to mention costly.”
“Also, there can be disproportionate representation. Some viewpoints can be proven right or far more proportionately right. Take global warming before climategate. 74% of scientists undoubtedly agreed that global warming existed. However, there was near equal representation in the media for something that used to essentially be considered fact by the scientific community.”

Is analysis by broadcasters, pundits, etc. good and we need more? Or not?

“Reportorial journalism is shrinking. The people who investigate and get the statistics are going away. Media, for the most part, is increasing mostly in terms of commentary. The after action news is growing, but if the facts are all gone, then what are we going to comment on? That is why saving the newspapers is so vital.”

Do you think the profit motive is harming journalism? Or is it a problem at all?

“That would have been a far easier question to ask a couple years ago. Today 2 of 3 news organizations in general are in the red. We may have gotten here because of profit motive, but now it is about if the media, newspapers in particular, will survive.”
“It is spilled milk though.”

While failing, should we be concerned about content changing, particularly foreign?

“30% staff decreases are the average in every media organization. In those cuts, the first to go have been foreign correspondents.”
“We, as consumers, have given them a message that the old business model doesn't work and that they need to update their model.”
“Print circulation is down 10% in the last year, and ad revenue is down 23%. It's a revenue problem.”

You said local broadcast news makes the most money? Is it because they pursue the easiest stories?

“It is because it was the easiest to adapt. Simply add more news time. Local news added on average over 4 hours per day to their coverage. They have now run out of hours though, so they are leveling out. They made 40% annual profit on average. They could have taken 35% profit and increased their news room from 25 people to 45 or 50, and thus increased the quality of their coverage.”
“The product has been thing out over the course of this time. We can empirically prove it.”

It is not necessarily the thinning out of staffs, but the desire to hold on to 40% profict that is causing the quality to spike?

“Yes, 60% of lead stories are crime and fire in local news. They didn't spend time to get to know their audience because they were making 40% profit. Who cares at that point? They weren't in the news business, they were in the money making business. The weren't chasing for quality, profit, or public interest. They were in the chase for profit.”

Will we cycle back into it when the economy turns around?

“As the ratings drop, the revenues drop. They can do 3 things: cut costs, add revenue options (ads), or add hours. They have sort of done all 3 to maintain profits. When we come out they will be left with cutting costs.”
“The #1 reason people watch local news is weather. That's gone, use your phone now. So since local media didn't take the time to get to know its audience and adapt their business model, they may be facing large problems.”

We have read from Tom Patterson that people really want hard news, do you have any empirical evidence to support this?

“We, the Pew Institute, did a survey to prove this. You need a visually appealing opening story and teasers about stories at the end that are engaging. Pile the hard news in between.”

He then explained the X structure of broadcast news, also known as the soft news sandwich.

“We found that the topic of the story is irrelevant in fact. The quality and the depth is what people rated high. Simple and uninformative, but visually appealing, people found found antagonizing. The live, local, and late breaking were despised.”

How do we make news appeal to the young demographic?

“That's the $40 billion question.”
“The 2008 election youth news consumption radically spiked. 1 reason is that young people are on demand consumers. They want what they want, when they want it. The old news does not cater to that. Culture change is upon us.”

Didn't write question, but it was about establishment bias.

“American media is almost entirely advertisement based. Advertisers are not equally interested in all people. Why sell to people that won't buy? When audiences decline in general, you focus on demographics to maintain and expand a specific areas. That is perpetually a sign of a failing business in economics.”

Does a lack of hard news become a detriment to participating in Democracy?

“The O.J. Trial gave media viewership a huge boost. I call it the Ojification of the news. It became infotainment or tabloidization. Voter participation peaked in 1960. It was on a steady decline until 1992 when it spiked, then it climbed a little bit, then it started to decline, now back up in 2008. There are media events and spikes that match up almost identically with the voting record. You can't say it is causal, but there is something there. I believe that this increase in 2008, though, is due to technology and the expansion of the news. It was the youtube election.”
1 billion views on the Obama channel on youtube, and he had 3 paid people to monitor his youtube channel. He believed that that may have led to some increased voter participation.

What are your opinions on the FCC?

“They are on a deregulation trajectory.”
“The most recent ripping came on accident by Tom Powell.
“The FCC clamped down on obscenity.”
“They are thinking about giving bandwidth away with requirements to meet. When they did this in the 1960s, the regulations were cumbersome and unsatisfactory. The only way, I believe, to save the media is to subsidize. Subsidies will lead to a Free Press. Journalisms will meet this will much opposition though.”

If you had a magic wand and could fix one thing, what would you fix?

“The revenue problem.”
Profits on a 27% decline in local tv last year, 23% in newspapers, and 18% in magazines.
“The internet is decoupling advertising from the news.”
“Companies need to find new sources of revenue online.”
“67% of top news sites are owned or operated by old media corporations, and 13% of news sites are aggregaters like google.”
“Google will say that they are modernizing advertisements.”
“News will say that google is stealing more revenue in the market than the government is.”

Anything in particular that will make that revenue?

“Most news people say that it will be a variety of things including micropayments, fragmented advertising, and more. I have no fear about the big institutions surviving.”
“In short, revenue problems solved = more reporters = better product produced.”