Coverage of Tuesday's Election

I was watching CNN Tuesday night to receive coverage of the votes, and I was thoroughly impressed with the style of the coverage. I thought it was smart how they had a panel of 5 (I think) people who were constantly receiving new information while the others showed the states won on a map. 

I don't watch CNN often, but I really enjoyed how they took everything step by step and broke down what the Electoral votes meant, how much each candidate needed to win, and as states were won by a candidate they announced those instantaneously. I thought this was smart because to many the information given may have been a no brainer, but to many others I am sure the election-system can be very confusing. 

They made it feel very conversational and approached one another as if they were talking over dinner, and made it less formal. This made me feel comfortable. Most of the questions asked, I was wondering myself, and I didn't have to worry about asking them myself. 

Basically CNN did an outstanding job with visuals, guest speakers and explaining  the information in detailed form. I was proud of CNN. 

Palin; Good or Bad Caboose for the McCain Train

Most people agreed that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee was completely out of left field. In some sense his choice was a wise one because he gained voter support that he might have had a tough time getting otherwise. McCain had accumulated voters such as women, certain environmentalist, and Alaskans. The majority of the media sources have portrayed her as an unintelligent, incompetent, hockey mom who has limited politcal experience. I think that the media has given her such a negative image and has exagerated her flaws. It will be interesting to see if Palins affect on the campaign will bring the McCain to the white house or back to Alaska.

Media <3's Obama

Many times over this campaign McCain has complained about biased media coverage. He has claimed that Obama is treated like a celebrity and gets significantly more coverage. This article seems to agree, stating, "during the first five months of 2007, Obama received by far the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate". Is this because there are just that many more positive things to say about Obama, or might the media be biased? It is easy to see what makes him a more interesting story. Obama is younger, attractive, funny, and happens to be America's first serious African-American candidate. It seems only natural that reporters would spend more time on him.

The article also goes on to say that a lot of the statistics on media coverage just depend on perspective. For example, Hilary Clinton had a higher percentage of "negative" stories about her campaign, but "nearly 20% of the Clinton stories were aired on conservative talk radio" and unsurprisingly "86% of these were negative". The author states that stories about Obama were positive because they dealt mostly with Obama's fundraising and his background, while only "14.5% of the stories dealt with policy or the public record".

So I guess my question is, is it up to journalists to cover each candidate evenly, or it the candidate's responsibility to be news worthy? McCain solved his media problem by adding Sarah Palin to his ticket, although the media coverage of her is not always glowing. Personally I have to say that in my perspective there has been far more positive media coverage about Obama than McCain. I don't know whether this is biased or just reflects the candidate's own strengths and weaknesses, but to be honest I'd rather read about Obama's accomplishments any day.

Forget the hastle, vote early.

Across the nation we are constantly bombarded with campaign propaganda and rising and dropping poll results, which add to the pressure of one of the most important acts of this nation, voting. Especially in circumstances where voters are undecided, every piece of information can have the slightest effect to swing them one way or another. However, for those citizens who have decided who they want for president, many have joined the trend of voting early. According to the article in the New York Times, among the 32 states that do allow early voting over a quarter of the registered citizens have cast their ballots, by mail or in person. I think it is important to promote this kind of voting opportunity so that those who avoid polling booths because of the mobs of people or long delays, are able vote early and get it out of the way. It also relieves a lot of tension in the days building up to the election and makes it easier to disregard propaganda in the media, knowing that your vote is already in.

Campbell Brown Shakes Things Up

Campbell Brown, political pundit and anchor on CNN, has been anchoring Election 2008 on CNN since February and the show was renamed after her this month: "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull"--right before the election in order to ensure a smooth transition when the election is over. The show was meant to be called No Bias, No Bullshit but the network wouldn't approve. And viewers are definitely tuning in. The show is meant to be a completely objective take on politics and as Brown noted on Monday night's Daily Show, is not as liberal as “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” on MSNBC, and not as conservative as “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News.


Brown said of the show, "You're not going to see me ever be partisan." But that doesn't mean you won't see her take a stand. While the show presents the news objectively Brown also gives her own analysis of the news- for example, she gave a tough interview to the republican spokesperson that the campaign felt attacked the party, and is now questioning Obama's campaign finances.

The trouble is, most viewers feel that the show is definitely on the liberal side, but more importantly the analysis that Brown gives causes the show to blur the line between a hard news show and an editorial news show. Journalists are supposed to analyze the news though, and because she is critical of both parties (though Republicans may have more to criticize?) I think the show definitely gives a different opinion on politics, both during and after this election.

Upcoming Election Problems

We all obviously remember the fiasco that the polls caused in the 2004 election. It appears were in for more of the same in 2008. Not surprisingly states such as Florida and North Carolina are experiencing long lines already in the early voting. The BBC international recently covered some of the issues we are going to face next tuesday. Unfortunately the US is in the international spotlight and it appears we might be heading for another embarrasement on the 4th. 

This election has been enough of a circus as it is. 

C'mon life, cut us a break. 

In the media's defense...

During election periods, it is inevitable that a bias is going to show in the media. Saturday Night Live is going to make fun of all the candidates, magazines are going to publish unflattering pictures, and certain stories are going to be over-emphasized for all the wrong reasons. But we have to give them some credit; they're covering potentially the most revolutionary election we will ever be a part of. Of course there's going to be skepticism in who's being covered and how, but at least they're being covered. Fifty years ago it would be unheard of for a news channel to be interviewing a woman running for President. An African-American man would not get any facetime or credibility while running for the toughest job in our country. 

The media has covered the issues of this election, all be it not always directly, and has made America aware of the election. Personally I think the media is playing a huge role in the fact that record voter turn-out numbers are being predicted and many demographics who typically don't vote in elections are not only voting this November but also volunteering their time for the candidate of their choice. 

We can criticize the media for being biased or unfair, but at least for these past few months we've been saved from the celebrity rehab and divorce stories that used to dominate the headlines. At least they're reporting on things that actually matter to our country.

A Half-Hour Advert?

Obama paid 7 television networks to run a half-hour advertisement. It was shown on CBS, FOX and NBC, at a cost of $ 1 million per network BBC reports, as well as on the Spanish-language Univision, BET, MSNBC and TV One. In order to accommodate the program, FOX News didn't run its pre-game show ahead of the World Series fifth game.

While political campaigns spending large amounts of cash on advertising is not unheard of, Barack Obama's message is the first of its kind. Personally, I get bored of the political tv adverts after the first few times I catch them; and they only last for a few minutes! I cannot imagine sitting down to watch interviews of random people telling of their support for a candidate, the timing of which is the same length as a funny sitcom.

In looking at the media, it quickly becomes apparent that it seems to have some type of preference towards Obama.  This is evident on the Chicago Tribune website.  If you click on politics/election, you will find links to both a page for Obama and for McCain.  On Obama's page there are stories on how he promoting unity and change.  There was even a piece on how he visited his ailing grandmother.  When you look at McCain's page, the stories are strictly political.  In fact, a handful of the pieces are more focused on Obama than McCain.  It seems to me that the media has been doing a great deal of work to paint Obama as the family man while painting McCain as a hard political machine.

Along with this, the media coverage of Sarah Palin is anything but flattering.  Her recent Newsweek cover did not undergo retouching, something that is common practice in the media.  The Republican party spoke out against this picture, saying that it emphasized her "wrinkles, blemishes, pores, and facial hair".  I have to agree with the Republican party, here.  I believe that this was a calculated move to emphasize her age and along with that, remind the readers that her running mate is just as old.

I understand that people will always choose sides in an election, but that is not the media's role.  The media is supposed to be objective and I do not believe that their current actions support this.

Media and the 2008 Election

The 2008 election has continuous coverage by the media, coming from all sides. Barack Obama is constantly the center of attention in the race. He is covered by the media regarding all aspects of his life: his religion, origins, family, and much more. The coverage of the candidates comes across as a scandal. Oh, did you know this and that about so and so. The media can affect voters in a way that gives the media a lot of power, I mean, they are the ones that give us a lot of the information known about the candidates.

John McCain did not seem to attract the kind of attention Obama does, until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin has caused a media frenzy. In the beginning the media knew almost nothing about her, and scrambled to dig up any information they could find. She went from being a complete unknown, to the spotlight in a matter of days. 

Tina Fey plays a fabulous Sarah Palin on SNL, so good it can be hard to tell the two apart. But the skits don't portray a version a Palin the country would respect. How much do SNL skits and Youtube videos affect voters opinions? Recently I watched a video on Youtube, starring Sarah Palin, at church being "de-witchitized."A witch doctor was ridding her body of all the witch spirits. How would voters react to this if national media were to pick up on it? 

Recently, it came out that Sarah Palin's wardrobe, hair, and make-up cost a significant amount of money taken from John McCain's campaign. The media caught hold of this, and in my opinion, blew it significantly out of proportion. But something like that will affect the way voters see the republican campaign.

All in all the media has a major affect on the outcome of the election. 

Palin's Ratings

CNN.com has been reporting that Sarah Palin's campaign could be hurting her chances based on how low her ratings have been. CNN.com is reporting that "Palin's core-conservative beliefs, demonstrated political acumen, and compelling frontier biography position her to reshape the face of a party now viewed by many voters as out of touch. It's a debate, somewhat ugly at times, that is beginning to play out in public view as Republicans brace themselves for the possibility of losing the White House and a significant number of seats in Congress come Election Day." The republican party is concerned with the fact that Palin could reshape the whole view of the White House. The Republican party feels that the White House will have an "identity crisis" because Palin is out of touch with what the people want. They are afraid that Palin is working for herself rather than the actual presidency. Palin is running her own campaign

Expectations>issues

In the Chicago Tribune today, "the talk" section mentioned the social phenomenon of brands defining candidates. In effect, writer John Keilman argues that the connations associated with products (Obamaian Sam Adams vs. McCainian Budweiser) can be extended to the Dem and Reb candidates.

I would argue that is a telling definition of this election's media coverage, and my primary complaint. Journalists assigned labes to Obama and McCain, often without any mention of their stance on issues. The subhead reads "Voters link each to products," but the reality is that the media usually made these connections and pushed onto a passive citizenry. When did expectations outweigh political developments and debates?

I feel as if the media had a ready-made portrayal of each candidate this entire year. The candidates themselves were merely incidental.

2008 Election Media Coverage

This may be stating the obvious, but it seems to me that the media has been favoring Barack Obama lately. However, I don't believe this was always the case. In the beginning of the election it seemed that Obama had no chance of winning this election. He was skewed unattractively by the media, claiming he had no experience and wasn't qualified to be President. Although those arguments still exist, Obama is increasingly winning over the media.

The media almost acts as a bully on the playground: Once they find someone better to torment, they leave their original victim alone. Their new victim is of course Sarah Palin, who offers up countless stories that are too good to let go. The media has thoroughly enjoyed pouncing on her every word and action. The media is less interested in the issues and just follows the story wherever it goes. And ever since McCain chose Palin as his running mate, the story has been on her. This could have been a great publicity stunt, but lately McCain's plan has been backfiring on him. The media has shown increasing disapproval of Palin from the general public.

Even when Biden shoots his mouth off, he still barely makes the media radar. And although Obama is still in the news, he's definitely been put on the back burner to Palin. He's really only in the news when the McCain campaign camp decides to attack him about some new accusation. But Obama refuses to lash out, therefore there's no real story to tell. In this case, less media coverage on Obama is working for him. The media is not painting Sarah Palin or John McCain in an attractive light, and with the election a week away, it might be too late for the McCain camp to turn things around. I think the media's portrayal of all the candidates during this campaign will have a huge impact on the result of this election.

McCain wins?

In this article by the Chicago Tribune, an editorial writer gives us reasons why Obama might not win on Tuesday. As was mentioned in a previous blog post, this is uncharacteristic for the media to portray Obama in a bad light, usually he seems to do no wrong in the media's eyes. However, the last reason was especially surprisingly. I was surprised that a newspaper would admit that this is even a factor for fear of ridicule, but to be honest this has happened before. It is called the "Bradley Effect," named after Tom Bradley, an African American who ran for California governor twice and lost. It is defined as "a tendency of voters to tell interviewers or pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for an African American candidate, but then actually vote for his Caucasian opponent," according to Wikipedia. Bradley was predicted to win by a large margin, but actually lost by quite a large margin. If this happened before, could it happen again? The media perpetuates the idea that Obama will win, because they hardly ever print negative things about him, so it isn't hard to see why some people might feel like they would be alienated if they admitted to liking McCain. It makes me wonder if the media telling us that Obama is going to win will actually lull his supporters into a false sense of security. They may think the work is done and that his win will be easy, but in fact it might not. This could be blamed on the media, and it would be terrible if this false sense of security hurt him on Tuesday.

Media as "The Watch Dog" or "The Stalker"

Since the publication of news papers, the media has assumed the role of the "watch dog" on the government. Collectively it has done a good job at keeping tabs on the government, especially the motives of politicians. Several scandals have been uncovered and first scooped by the media, revealing dirty politics and even dirtier politicians. One account was when writers from the Washington Post uncovered the Water Gate scandal during President Nixon's term. Today, with the accessibility of information and the public's ever increasing desire for the whole story, the media has crossed that fine line between "watch dog" and heavy stalker. Most recently, they have averted their attention and resources to stalking the Republican nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin. Fairly unknown on a national level, Palin and her entire family have been experiencing the full force of the media ever since they were shoved into the spotlight. I understand that some people believe it is important to know everything about a candidate in order to trust them, but why do we need photos of her playing sports in High School? Who cares that she won a beauty pageant in Alaska? These minute details have no effect in the way I am going to vote, and if they have influence over others then I am concerned with the criteria on which these individuals base their votes. The Huffington Post has done an extraordinarily CREEPY job at digging up old Palin photos for one of their articles. When we are delving in to someone's past this way, or hacking into personal e-mail accounts, does anyone stop to ask whether or not this is morally expectable? I  don't think I like the way it looks like the media is handling their "watch dog" approach to politics. The public's need for information is getting out of hand, and is most likely only going to get worst. How can we stop this massive snowball from getting any bigger and destroying what government we have left? Or are we doomed to dealing with whatever scummy politicians are dumb enough to throw themselves into such a dirty game?

Does the Media Want Obama to Win?

According to an article on the Pew Research Center, voters believe that journalists want Obama to win this years election. They say that every year voters feel that the media favors the Democratic Party over the Republican, but this year it's by a margin of 70%-9%. This is a rather large difference from previous elections.

Keeping this thought in mind, another article from the Pew Research Center says that John McCain has been getting rather negative coverage from the media as opposed to Obama who seems to receive more positive coverage than negative.

Are these two articles really true, that the media is clearly favoring Obama in this election? Or could they just be fairly one sided? Who knows.

We would like to believe that journalists keep their political views out of their writing, especially when it comes to hard news. The notion of objectivity is not always as easy as it sounds, but journalists have an obligation to give people the facts, not opinions, when it comes to news.

It is very interesting, however, that every year since at least 1992, the public voters believe that the media favors the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Obviously if voters believe that journalists are not doing their job when it comes to giving people the hard facts, sans opinion.

The Historical 2008 Election

This year's election has been a great moment in history. It first started with the first woman to run for presidency, the first African-American man to run for presidency, and now a woman who has the chance to become president by becoming vice president. The media has made a big emphasis on covering all kinds of aspects of the elections. Some information has been helpful, but some has been for scandal.
The one thing I have noticed, along with other news watchers, that the media has made a huge emphasis on Barack Obama and little is seen or heard of John McCain. Barack Obama has been discussed over and over again in the news, in regards of his religion, his church, his beliefs. It seems what has happened in his life is so much more interesting to cover, or this is at least what the media has portrayed. McCain has been covered a little bit more now because the elections are near, but also because of his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, who has made a big splash in the media. With all her controversy in her life, McCain and Palin have made big headlines.
It seems like the media portrays the candidates in a way that seems to be scandalous. They want the news to be like gossip more than information. An example can be Sarah Palin and her lifestyle. I do not see how that is more important to know than her policies for this country. On Obama's case, the fact of how he was raised and what goes on in his church, seemed to be a really big deal. I can see how these issues can be important in knowing the candidate, but I did not see many stories on what Obama plans to do for our country. Another reason why these two candidates have been in the news is because of their images. Both are considered good looking and young, while McCain is portrayed as being old and grumpy. This has happened before in history when JFK ran for presidency. The media covered him a lot because he was handsome and had a movie star presence. It seems that the presence of a candidate will affect how the media and public perceive him/her.
It has also been such a big election because of the issues that are current. Many people are worried about the economy, oil, war, and personal issues that they may be facing. These topics will be greatly affected based on who will be voted in to make changes in our country. Because of this, it seems that people seem to lean towards Obama because he represents different beliefs. It seems that the media is looking for someone who will be different from other candidates to attract people.
I have to admit that it may not be all the media portraying the elections this way, but the majority have made this impression on me as well as other people.
The one thing that I have recognized and appreciate (maybe because I am older) is the fact that the media has been making a big deal about the elections. It is something very important and it should be covered intensely to get people to vote and voice their beliefs. It should also be covered to educate people and this year it is really great that it has been covered so much because it is such a great moment in history. It seems that this year, so many young people want to voice their opinions by voting and the media has played a big role in this. This is something that I feel is extremely good because it allows the youth to learn about making important decisions.

"Swinginess"

No one should have an excuse for voting uninformed because there are so many outlets of information that it is impossible not to know what is going on in the 2008 election. But, deciding which candidate to choose can pose a bigger problem for some voters who are torn between the two candidates. I think it’s really cool how the media (i.e. the internet) has created things such as the Swing Vote Calculator to show how affective people in certain states with no allegiance can be. For example, with my demographics (IL, white, female, some college education, 18-29, Protestant), my “swinginess” is a 27 out of 100 but if I lived one state over in Indiana, my “swinginess” would be 100 out of 100. Since it’s not possible to know what either candidate will or will not do in his time in the White House, any vote is fair game but it is more effective in different states due to different demographics. How much influence do swing voters have in the election though? According to an article from Boston Globe and a study done by a Democratic Council , swing voters sway the vote by 6.7 percentage points between elections that Democrats win and lose. For the presidential candidates, influencing these “supervoters” as Reader’s Digest calls them is very crucial for the success of a candidate because they have the potential to determine the winner next Tuesday!

Media Coverage of the 2008 Election

In regards to the news coverage of the 2008 election I think they have done their job: those who rarely watched campaigns, debates, polls in the past are now tuning in almost religiously. The media have covered all angles of the campaign race and have used all mediums to broadcast their findings. Regardless of “media favoritism” during election-time, or how ethically they go about their job, I truly think good journalism has been seen at many times throughout this election. I have my personal frustrations with the election and the media, but I put this aside to look objectively into what is being produced to the world. 

Journalist have a loyalty to the citizens first and fore most, and I think they have done a great job at catering to liberals, republicans, independents, men, women of all ages and all ethnic backgrounds. I would never want to be a political reporter because of all the stress involved, but I give them much credit for following the campaign and reporting the FACTS as they find them best to their knowledge. 

I know this is the first time in my 22 years of life I have ever cared so much about an election, and been able to get basic facts, in depth facts, and gossip on any one of the candidates. I appreciate that, and in turn it makes me rely on the news media, and gives me hope that they will continue to do their job as they are doing now. 

Presidential Assassination Scare

I'm sure it has crossed some peoples' minds...as much as we don't want to think or talk about it, and as much as many of us are praying nothing like this would happen. I'm talking about the possibility of a presidential assassination.
Some of you have probably heard about the neo-Nazi skinheads who were planning on assassinating Barack Obama. The story broke on major news outlets last night. The federal government has broken up the plan and all is hunky dory now.
But, should this story have even been broadcasted? It was absolutely newsworthy. It was major national news. But did the public really have to know this? No. Was it worth a small public scare? No. Might this create copy-cat scares? It's possible.
The media has the power to control what the public knows. Was this socially responsible of the media to broadcast this story? I don't think so.

Unethical Journalism at Its Finest

There is no doubt that this election has been one of the most important elections in United States history, but has the media taken this election too far? A new controversy over the recent issue of Newsweek magazine, which has an untouched photo of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the cover, represents how unethical and bitter the media has been with this election. The photo shows all of Palin’s imperfections and Newsweek attempts to use this photo to represent her “average American” identity. I just don't understand why the media is consistently focusing on issues in the election that are irrelevant to our country. Showing Sarah Palin's wrinkles and pores doesn't make her a better or worse candidate. Either does constantly speaking about Barack Obama's race. There have been so many controversies and issues in this campaign that focus a great deal of attention to physical attributes, causing our society to be less and less informed about the real issues within our country. I think journalists are doing this intentionally to promote their ideas and opinions about this election to sway voters in a specific direction. Instead of getting people excited about this election, I feel like they are ruining it with their biased opinions and it is a huge shame. It is a shame not only because it is unethical and unfair, but also because they are causing society to be less informed which will dig us into a deeper hole than we already are in.

Print Jounalism is Dying

We've been hearing it for a while now- print journalism is dying. At the Christian Science Monitor print journalism is dead. The paper has stopped publishing its print edition and is now online only, because of cost issues. As an aspiring journalist this makes me question- by the time I'm in the field will there ONLY be online newspapers? And if so how bad will that be? I'll still get to write, it just won't be tangible. Does that make a difference?

I read an editorial article in Vanity Fair this month titled "The News Blues" that takes a look at the state of the world now in comparison to many other times in history but specifically how the media is contributing to the downfall. He goes onto discuss how the media contributes to the anxiety disorders that plague our nation, and he truly believes that the media is making everything much more negative than it actually is. 

Personally, I agree with some statements, but not all of them. Yes, the media does tend to report on negative incidents more often than everyday heart-warming stories, but that's because the information from them pertains to us everyday. Yes, it's nice to hear about someone saving a puppy, but information on a child abduction is actually something we could potentially contribute to. 

One quote really stuck out at me: "To watch archive footage of TV reporters from the black-and-white era with their measured intonations and ashen visages—before everybody burst into Michael Kors orange—is to crack open the crypt on a more responsible, somber, and, yes, duller era, when journalists still conducted themselves as a priestly caste serving the needs of an informed citizenry, as opposed to catering to cud-chewing dolts. (p.1)"

As we evaluate the news for its flaws, we should keep in mind that the media is there to inform us - it may not be what tugs at our heart strings, but then again is it really supposed to?

Newspaper endorsement

Last week, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama. A historical endorsement, because it was the first time ever that the paper had endorsed a Democratic candidate for the presidency. Some have argued that newspapers should no longer endorse political candidates. I, for one agree with the Time magazine managing editor when he says:

"Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?"

Editor and Publisher editor Greg Mitchell defended the practice however on In The Media. I did not find his argument very convincing though, as he mainly seemed to argue (based on anecdotal evidence) that endorsements make a difference, not that these endorsements are necessary.

Palin's Strong Influence

With Halloween right around the corner, many people are questioning what their costume will be and while many have the freedom to choose, people in West Hollywood, California might not be so lucky. The city officials are discussing a potential limitation for the public by creating a ban for drag queens and other “party goers” to dress up as Republican V.P. candidate, Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign does not approve of this ban, referring to it as a deliberate attempt to decrease the Republican vote. Even though there are probably many more issues that deserve greater attention, this story was just too amusing to pass up. The Republican Party wants people to start taking Palin more seriously, so wouldn’t it be rational not to endorse drag queens and other “party goers” to dress up as her for Halloween? Especially since the polls are showing that she is having such a huge influence on voters. Was this a joke intended just to get a reaction out of the Republican Party? If so, this is really taking the elections to a whole new level, which isn't surprising.

Power to the People!

How about this blog-stone? This story, about a blogger who became a go-to source for aviation experts, shows how easy getting some information is these days. Working on a laptop out of his Boston living room, the guy (with neither journalism nor aviation training) has "significantly altered how aerospace is covered." A business such as Boeing was forced to adapt its media relations to HIM. Might this be the start of something, in terms of industry scoops being forwarded to one central blog?

the "unbiased" news

The Chicago Tribune's editorial board announced today that they endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. I understand that this newspaper is in Chicago, where Obama is from, and that based on the rights to free speech these members are allowed to express their beliefs and views. But is this really appropriate? In a time where the media is continuously accused of having a liberal bias when they're supposed to report unbiased news, is this the right thing to do? Should they really openly admit to endorsing the democratic candidate? I think this potentially could present a dilemma for some readers who are either republican or undecided; maybe now they won't trust the stories presented because they know the paper favors Obama.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Since October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I want to share some information about breast cancer to help give women and men a better understanding of it's prevention in hopes to prevent many from attaining the disease. Notice how I included men? Although it is seldomly discussed, men are at risk for breast cancer even though it is more commonly diagnosed in women. The cause of breast cancer is not quite known for sure, but many researchers believe that like many other forms of cancer, it is a result of an intherited gene mutation. Lorie Parch, author of "What Causes Breast Cancer?", states scientists know for a fact that "mutations to the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 (Breast Cancer 1 and 2) genes, which normally help prevent cancer by regulating cell growth, are linked to an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer." A person is at a greater risk for breast cancer if, for example, they have a family history of the disease or the gene mutation. Some common warning signs of the disease include "a change in the look or feel of the breast," pain or discomfort in the breast area, as well as, "a change in the look or feel of the nipple and nipple discharge." The best way to test for breast cancer, however, is to see your nearest physician and ask for a mammography, which is a process of x-rays that examine the breast for lumps or masses. Medicine Plus suggests that it is necessary to get a mammogram if you are a woman older than 40 or if you have a history of the disease, no matter what age you are.

And the best informed audience members are....

Last year, a study by the PEW research center found that by and large, Jon Stewart's audience is the best informed on current events. However, in a more recent study the Jon Stewart Show and the Colbert report came in in the middle of the pack when it comes to political knowledge, well behind the likes of NPR, The New Yorker, Hannity and Colmes and...Rush Limbaugh, but ahead of O'Reilly, C-span and Leno. Also interesting, people who watch the Colbert report seem to be better informed than those who watch the Jon Stewart show. To measure their level of knowledge of political events, participants were asked to name the controlling party of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. secretary of state and Great Britain's prime minister.

Keep on rockin'

Rolling Stone magazine, famous (or notorious, depending on whom you ask) for its oversized physical format, has just changed its size to match other magazines. This on the heels of The Atlantic's redesign and the Chicago Tribune redesign already mentioned in this blog.

Almost universally, the motive has been to "adapt to the times." Sure, that makes sense. But when that translates more pictures and less text, what does that say about society? Just by glancing at our media styles can we see the true meaning of "tuning out." What's next?