OFA and Online Political Activism

Last November, 131 million people came out to the polls to elect Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States. Simultaneously, the voters gave Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a bigger Democratic majority in Congress.

Part of that victory resulted in engaging voters that had rarely voted before, as well as younger voters that had never voted in their lives through a vigorous new media campaign centered on getting voters involved.

A year later, and Barack Obama the Democratic National Committee faces a tough road ahead. They were swept in the two governors races in Virginia and New Jersey by the GOP, and by all accounts, the Democratic voter base was not energized.

Organizing for America was set up to do just that; energize the Democratic base in years that Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot. Organizing for America is not simply a website dedicated to promoting the President's agenda, it's a multi-faced, user friendly, social networking site designed to get supporters of the President engaged when they need it the most.

Even if you're not a fan of the President or his agenda, you have to be impressed by the website. The website keeps track of how much you have been active for the President. Calls made, doors knocked on, etc.

One can post blogs, share stories, and connect with fellow users. I've also gotten e-mails telling me to contact my Congressman on health care reform. It's just like Facebook, only it's for a purpose.

By all accounts, the Democrats will have a fight on their hands as a re-energized Republican Party tries to take seats in Congress. Consequently, this website is going to grow even more important as we look forward to 2010.

Are Blogs Destroying Journalism?

As I was revisiting Artie Lange's incredible destruction of Joe Buck's show, I remembered a controversial clip from Buck's HBO predecessor, Bob Costas, about a segment on his show detailing sports blogs, and how they blur the line, (and I'm paraphrasing) "truth and rumor" and "commentary and insult." (video HERE)

Costas was joined on this panel by then-Deadspin editor and founder Will Leitch, Journalist Buzz Bissinger, and New York Jets wide receiver Braylon Edwards. It started out as a serious discussion about the rise of sports blogs, and the positives and negatives that come as a result of this rise. Buzz Bissinger however, came to start a fire, and he immediately tries to burn the entire house down.

Bissinger's main point is simple, Leitch is not a journalist. In a world where the lines of journalism, Bissinger doesn't believe Leitch is qualified to pose as a journalist in a forum in which he can. Leitch on the other hand defends his work, essentially saying that while blogs are inherently democratic, it takes work to maintain a blog.

Costas also brings up posts on the comment page in regards to a journalist leaving ESPN and posters insulting the journalist. Yet, as I posted last week, NJ.com, a legitimate source of news that feeds stories from the Star-Ledger and other newspapers, allows comments on their stories and consequently, people leave comments that some may determine to be inappropriate. So I think Costas doesn't have a point. If he want to blame Leitch, he should first blame legitimate news sources, starting with Costas' own employer, NBC sports.

For my part, I sympathize with Bissinger. Agree or not with his behavior, Bissinger is a legitimate journalist, who wrote the book that would become the TV show Friday Night Lights. He spent thirty-plus years working his craft, only to see a new medium emerge to push his medium out of the spotlight, his medium being the newspaper.

While I don't agree with his assessment that blogs are dedicated to "cruelty," I certainly agree with his concern about the lines blogs blur. There are journalists, and then there are people posing as journalists, and Leitch desires to be the newsman without following the guidelines newsmen need to follow. For example, regarding bias, Leitch is a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals. While there is nothing wrong with that, there's something wrong with openly admitting it and putting a spin on any news that involves the Cardinals.

Blogs are based on speed. Therefore, I do think the quality will go down. However, among the positives are blogs is that it's no longer just Bissinger writing on sports; it's Bissinger and the Jets fan sitting in the 15th row of the upper deck at the Meadowlands.

It's a wonderful advancement, but what needs to happen is the line between the blogosphere and the world of journalism must be clearly defined. Otherwise, we will see our news decline in quality, as Bissinger predicted.

Interactive New Media and the News

One of the most interesting parts of New Media is the accessability and abundancy of many different news sources on the internet. Before, many people had to watch TV or read their local newspaper to get the news.

Today, news is not only up to the minute, but also interactive. Many websites now publish their printed content online with the ability to comment. Now, when a story is printed online, hundreds of people can react in real time to the story, and other people can view the reactions online.

One example of interactive news is NJ.com, which features news from several New Jersey newspapers, including the Star-Ledger. NJ.com has a box that shows which stories have the most comments (LEFT). On a busy day, the top story uusally has more than 200 comments.

There are a host of benefits to this new interactive medium. Opinions are freely expressed, interaction is encouraged, and sometimes the posts are pretty funny. You can even trash the newspaper on their own website, like this commenter did in an article about Gov. Jon Corzine's loss in his campaign for re-election.

Posted by deceiverbo

November 04, 2009, 10:51PM

The Star-Ledger, despite being shell-shocked, is still able to put a spin on this election. Even if the voter shortfall in Union County, Hudson County and Newark cited above compared to 2005 was taken into account, Corzine would have still lost. And 1 million fewer voters than the 2008 election? Like they would have gone all to Corzine. Please spare us all. BO and the Democratic Party are failing to revive the economy and things are only getting worse.

Unfortunately, with this new type of interactivity, there are offensive comments that slip by, some of which go unregulated. They usually appear on the pages that feature hot-botton topics. One example is an article by Tom Moran advocating for the NJ state Legislature to use the lame-duck session to push through a bill to legalize gay marriage. What should be a civil debate on a legitimate news website quickly deteriorates into a free-for-all.

Posted by zumagong

November 05, 2009, 7:22AM

Nobody is telling anyone what to do. It's about allowing a union of two individuals who pay taxes and have families like anyone else. period. As far as redefining an "institution" -- it's already been redefined. Just ask Newt Gingrich and his four wives or Britney Spears. None of you so called Christians complained about that. And should we have "traditional" marriages that our founding fathers had? Women had no rights and had to cough up money to the husband. Interracial marriages were forbidden. We seem to only want to enforce the traditions we like and when its convenient. Put your money where your mouths are and demand that we ban divorce or make secondary marriages civil unions too!

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.

Reply to this comment | Post a new comment

Posted by joeb222

November 05, 2009, 11:00AM

Before you go around accusing others of bigotry, you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and examine your own bigotry. Where do you get off deciding what "so called" Christians think about Newt Gingrich's private life? And what in heck does THAT have to do with the issue. Nothing. It's just a vehicle for you to engage in Christian-bashing, as bigots such as you prefer to do rather than actually discuss an issue with any intelligence.

At least you showed you don't need to be taken seriously.

As you can see, it doesn't always end up being an intelligent discussion.

For my part, I welcome this newfound interactivity. It represents another barrier being broken down between journalists and the people they write for. What needs to happen now is that websites like NJ.com should start censoring comments more frequently, and those who roam these websites and participate should learn lessons of civility. There's nothing wrong with arguing, but name-calling and lack of respect for other point of views contribute nothing to civil discourse.