After a week of non-stop talk about all things Patriots, I have never been more ready for a game to begin. And be over.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the sport but I am sick and tired of the news being 75 percent Patriots non-stories. Who cares that a professor at Bridgewater State College is named Tom Brady? Does that warrant Boston's Channel 5 do a story on him? (In case I am wrong and you are actually interested in the story, here it is).
So now that it's time for the game, I'm embracing all things Super Bowl for the next few hours. I may not be the biggest football fan but I am intrigued by the media frenzy that surrounds this event. All the news sources I'm checking during the game have live blogs going. Here are the links to a few of them I'm reading:
MSNBC lets you watch the Super Bowl ads online, in case you miss them the first time around or if you want to see them again.
Heres a Bud Light ad:
And for those who aren't from the United States and do not understand the details of the game, the BBC has this post about the Super Bowl and its history.
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 oneThe 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.
