A political/journalism hybrid

Politics and journalism are merging in an all new way on Politicker.com -- creating jobs and changing reporting.

Politicker is a hub of political Web sites -- one for each state. Currently, 11 state Web sites are and all 50 should be up by the end of 2009. Jared Kushner, the publisher of the site, told the New York Times:

Each site will serve as an intensely local source for political articles, speculation and scandal. (Full article here).

Politicker is directed towards political-junkies and its slogan is "Inside Politics for Political Insiders." It was created based on the New Jersey political Web site, PoliticsNJ.com, which has now become a part of Politicker as PolitickerNJ.

The most interesting part about Politicker is the opportunities it currently has and will continue to have for young journalist. These days, the sites managing editor, James Pindell, sends recent graduates out to a state capital with "little more than a laptop and a BlackBerry" and has them create the state site.

According to the Times article, once all 50 state sites are up, each site will have one or two reporters, an editor and several bloggers employed to keep it running.

In addition:

The editors — who will remain anonymous, and will include lawyers, lobbyists and former officeholders — are the “secret sauce.”

Kushner told the Times that the sites themselves would not have any political affiliation, but then why will they have these connections? While I understand the necessity of having insiders working for the site in order to get inside information, it seems like a basic conflict of interest. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

In general I think it's a very smart idea to have this political hub. If it is successful, it will not only be an extremely useful tool for journalists but it will also be a great opportunity for journalists who want to write about politics.

Fun things to do online during Spring Break

Rate cute animal photos.

Thanks to a Facebook post, I was notified of the Daily Paws Web site.

In between watching the election coverage, I spent a good half hour ooo-ing and ahh - ing over the puppies, kittens, wild animals, barnyard animals and other pets (including hamsters, porcupine-like animals, iguanas and mice).

Here is one of today's top dogs (Mickey):

And a top cat (Angel):

And because I feel bad, a bottom dog (Sexy Daisy) and a bottom cat (Domino):

The site also includes pet tips and pet contests as well as an adoption link.

Of course I'm working on submitting a photo of Pause but for tonight it's back to politics.

Talking politics on the playground

In fifth grade to learn about the voting process my class held a mock election for the 1996 presidential race. I can't remember who won, but I do remember I voted for Ross Perot because I liked his ears.

These days it appears kids take politics a tad more seriously than I did.

The Associated Press article, Kids love campaign 2008 on MSNBC, talks about Eyck Freymann, the 13-year-old writer of the political blog Opinions and Analysis from the Young Sentinel.

And whoa is this blog impressive.

It contains links to many major new organizations and blogs (Al Jazeera, International Herald Tribune News and The Politico to name a few), an eye-catching layout and well-thought out, well written posts.


Freymann doesn't just post what others are saying of the election, he analyzes the election himself.

For example, on Wednesday he wrote:

For a while now I have been torn between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton has a more comprehensive health plan and would be, I believe, a strong President. Obama, on the other hand, could unify the party and would probably stand a better chance of beating McCain in November. After Super Tuesday, the two Democrats are locked in a dead heat, but I am beginning to question Obama's electability. Last night when analyzing the exit polls, I noticed a disturbing trend.

In the end he said:

I still believe that Obama is more electable with Clinton, but we can't take it for granted.

It's interesting that Freymann doesn't put his age on the blog, and makes me wonder if those posting realize the author is in eight grade.

Freymann may be the most knowledgable child on politics out there, but he not the only one.

Take this YouTube video of three young sisters talking politics:



(I think the Obama campaign should embrace the "If it can't be our mama, it has to be Obama" slogan)

Parents are clearly a big part of this political interest in children but for as long as I can remember the children's channel, Nickelodeon, has also embraced politics and brought it to its viewers.

And this year for the first time the network held a primary election Jan. 18. On the Web site it said:

So what if you can't officially vote until you're 18? You can still be a part of the political process RIGHT NOW! Nickelodeon's letting YOU pick the issues AND the president.

Obama and John McCain won the kid's primary.

On Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President main page, kids can learn more about the candidates and have discussions on message boards, which range from pleas against for/against Hillary Clinton to endorsements for Mike Huckabee to discussions on immigration.

There are also several cartoon videos explaining voting. Here an example:

TERMS

I'm pretty impressed with the kids of this country.

It looks like there's hope for the future.

Back to presidential basics

Several media outlets have created online-multimedia election packages, often times concentrating on the presidential candidates and their stances.

However the Associated Press (AP) is approaching the election a bit differently.

They are creating multimedia package called "The Measure of a Nation" that goes back to basics.

The AP writes:

We're starting not with the candidates but with the American people and their culture, and the principle that politics is a mere reflection of the enormous changes occurring in the nation.

The AP package contains magazine-style writing pieces, documentary videos and photo galleries, and will be updated throughout the year. AP writers Ted Anthony and Ron Fournier and online producer/videographer Jaime Holguin are leading the project.

Click on the picture to link to the video:



The first story is The Mythic Presidency. It examines what the public expects from a president and where these beliefs came from.

Anthony and Fournier write:

You think the presidency is about politics? Sorry. It's the values. No wonder we expect so much.

The AP will concentrate on nine specific areas. They hope this package is a "multimedia user's guide to the American presidency," and perhaps even serve future presidential candidates.

I came across this multimedia package on CyberJournalist.net and think that it's a great project. The AP has taken a story that has been covered to death and found a way to make it exciting and new.

Super-easy Tuesday

The Los Angeles Times is making it easy for people to remember who -- and what -- they want to vote for this Super Tuesday.

They created an Electronic Voters Guide, allowing readers to mark their vote on a mock ballot on the Times Web site. Their choices are then texted or e-mailed to their cell phones.

Therefore when they go to vote tomorrow they have their own little cheat sheet in hand.

In addition, the page is a one stop shop for voters and contains information ranging from absentee voter deadlines to where to vote. The page also links to stories and Times opinion pieces about the candidates and California propositions.

It's a great idea on the part of the Times to make the voting process as simple as possible. It also gets voters thinking about the issues before they get to the polls and gives them time to research the topics.

However, I can't help but wonder if a phone message is necessary. I mean, how hard can it be to remember your own opinion?

The Political Twilight Zone

Presidential campaigns are plagued with conspiracy theories.

The latest one developed after Thursday night's MSNBC Republican debate in Florida and involves Mitt Romney.

Check out the audio that has caused a fury of speculation:




Did you catch that? A mystery voice whispering "raise taxes" right after Tim Russert completes his question and seconds before Romney answers the question.

The conspiracy theory that immediately began floating around blogs and news organizations was Romney has someone whispering in his ear. Some news channels were even comparing it to the 2004 Bush/Kerry debate in which Bush was believed to have wiring under his coat.

Co-moderator, Brian Williams, also heard the voice. Williams posted on his blog:

I remember looking around stage with a start - scanning the faces of the candidates, trying to figure out who had just said that.

However, MSNBC reported Friday that this mystery voice was an audience member and the microphone on stage picked up chatter. None of the candidates heard the whisper.

So it appears another conspiracy theory has been solved.

Or has it.

The blog, Dirt Rhodes Scholar, has an interesting post saying this wasn't the only time a whisper occurred during the debate. During another Mitt Romney response, there apparently is a voice saying "support."

Check out the video:




Is Mitt Romney conspiring against the other Republican candidates by having his people whisper in his ear while he is live on stage.?

Or maybe its the Democrats conspiring against Mitt Romney, making all these whispers up in hopes of destroying Romney's chances.

Perhaps its all just one big conspiracy in the Political Twilight Zone.

Democracy at its best

I very much enjoy Yahoo! News: Odd Stories and this story from today is absolutely fantastic.

It's about a candidate for county treasurer in San Antonio, Texas, Ed Hamilton, who said if elected he will refuse to do the job -- and that's a promise.

Hamilton believes the treasurer position in his county is unnecessary and wastes money. He thinks its tasks should be assigned to another county office. Therefore, if he wins the election he said he will delegate the work to someone else, won't accept a paycheck and will petition to have the treasurer position formally eliminated.

Personally, I think Hamilton is the man.

Instead of complaining about his local politics, the 77-year-old man is doing something -- although a bit absurd -- to change them.

And in the end, isn't that what democracy should be about?

Non-presidential debates

Monday night's democratic debate created a frenzy on the internet.

CNN streamed the event live on its website while bloggers around the country posted minute-by-minute updates. Viewers got in on the action as well, posting their opinions and predictions on blogs and websites. Transcripts, audience reaction and political analysis were available almost immediately after the debate.

Today, it's hard to imagine a presidential election season without debates. However, this was not the case a mere 100 years ago.

For the greater part of the 19th and the earlier part of the 20th century, there was almost no demand -- or desire -- for debates, and citizens read newspapers if they wanted to get a candidate's views. This CNN article provides an interesting look at presidential debate history.

So what caused a surge of interest in debates?

Technology, of course and even more specifically TV.

In 1960, Nixon and Kennedy battled it out in the first televised presidential debate and new era of politics was born. People no longer had to turn to newspapers. They could now see candidates discussing issues and answering questions in an unprecedented way.

Today, almost 50 years later, we're in the midst of another change in the media's coverage of politics. People have almost an unlimited access to presidential debates. Now if you aren't near a TV you can watch a debate on the web or read the play-by-play on the blog of your choice.

What if you missed the debate completely? Watch it on YouTube.

Here you go, part one:




What makes all this even more ground-breaking is the level of interaction the public has with these debates.

In earlier debates this season, like the CNN/YouTube sponsored Democratic and Republican debates, viewers could submit questions for the candidates via video on YouTube. In addition, the Facebook/ABC/WMUR Republican and Democratic debate featured polls from Facebook as well as comments and questions during the broadcast.

On the above video from Monday, people commented on the YouTube page about what they thought of the debate.

Some comments contain endorsements like this one:

Socialization is a bastardization of the way this country was founded and intended. Republican policies are the much more intelligent decision, especially given our country's already weakened economic situation ... Vote RON PAUL for conservative fiscal policies that will help to revive the economy, not just hand out assistance through a rampant depression.

while others are rebuttals:

You fucking ididot! It happened on the Cons' watch.just like every other recession and depression. They all start when Cons are in the White House. It's always the Dems that have to come in and clean up after your morons.

Furthermore, live blogs, like this one The New York Times held Monday, also encourage discussion -- if in a slightly more professional forum.

As the candidates debate, the country debates among themselves. One can only hope this leads to a more informed country.