PAF494 - Nixon's Vixen and The State of the News Media

Nixon and His Vixen

After listening to Mark Feldstein's author interview on National Pubic Radio covering Nixon's Failed Attempts At 'Poisoning the Press', I began to think of the news media as Nixon's Vixen. For President Nixon the news media was like a quarrelsome woman, and as a Quaker I'm sure he knew that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. While Nixon's paranoia was substantiated by false stories that were published about him, his extreme actions towards journalists were largely unjustifiable. Considering having a journalist assassinated is absolutely absurd, however I will not deny that the media was out to get Nixon and get him good.  In present day times I can see the same type of battle emerging between presidents and political candidates and the news media. Journalists should rightfully and boldly dig into every nook and cranny that will expose corruption associated with political leaders and candidates as long as they themselves are not acting in a corrupt manner. As long as journalist don't break the law and practice good ethical journalism, I stand by their side proclaiming, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" The news media is still the public's political police and arm of "checks and balances". 

There could be many potential Watergate type scandals that surface in the future of American politics and the news media must sound an alarm loud enough for those dead to integrity to hear it. The news media must not stoop to a level of illegality like the ones they expose so that the stories they report will be published "check mates" in a game of chess that no popular public relations imitation "Checkers" speech will be able to compete in the overall game of truth. Chess is much more challenging, strategic, and thought-provoking than checkers. It is an entirely different game all together. The bottom line is that no president, politician, or presidential candidate should be able to justify their power-hungry measures by stating with charisma that they are only for the good of the people. The news media should turn every political popularity contest into a test of truth utterly and forcefully removing the "con" from contest. Presidents that receive a fortune from holding office should gain that fortune from things like their salary, paid speaking events, and the sales of books they publish, but not from being paid-off which displays that they have sold-out. Hush money will not stay quiet forever. When I think of the word corrupt, I visualize the core of a scandal erupting. It is absolutely amazing to me that Irish play Oliver Goldsmith said, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" as opposed to an American president or presidential candidate. 

Audience vs. Economics:

The amount of viewers of cable news seems to be deceasing but that hasn't necessarily had as much as an impact on revenue as it would seem. Cable news networks have seemed to be able to retain large advertising contracts and they also receive subscriber rates. According to an annual report on American journalism for 2011 put out by the Pew Research Center, cost conscious Americans don't seem to be cancelling their cable subscriptions, they are just watching things other than news on cable. With the ever increasing use of the Internet I personally think a lot of people view their news online. While the strategy of some cable news outlets to lock in prime talent may help retain certain audiences, I think the future could remain bleak in regards to increasing viewership. However, as technology continues to progress cable news may be able to capture an online audience to watch cable news programs on the Internet. They could live stream shows on facebook like so many other programs are doing now. In the future we will probably even see many people watching cable news through mobile apps on their smart phones.

Key Questions Facing Digital News:

1. "How much progress has been made trying to monetize the Web, particularly when it comes to producing news and information about current events?" A lot of news is now communicated on the Web, but the challenge to monetize this content is ongoing. As news outlets continue to learn how to leverage their online news media they will become more effective in increasing revenues through it. One step forward would be to alter their current advertising packages for television broadcast to automatically include online advertising. As they draw in larger audiences to the Web they should in turn be able to achieve more successful results in monetizing the Web. 
2. " If the mobile revolution has begun, how big is it, and how large will it become?  And what do the early data suggest about whether tablets will create new revenue potential for news?" The mobile revolution has definitely begun and it's big. It is estimated that 65% of the U.S. population will own a smartphone or tablet by 2015. The early data shows signs that new revenue streams will flow progressively as a result of the use of tablets and mobile devices to view news. Hold on news buffs, we are in a mobile revolution!
3. " Is the shift to digital accelerating?" This is a simple question with an obvious answer. Yes. A lot of people's computers is now their mobile phone (smartphone) or mobile device. 
4. " What is occurring in online newsrooms? How much progress has been made, and in what ways? And to what extent can we generalize about this diverse and rapidly changing space?" For one thing, online newsrooms are innovating and creating richer content than before. The news is not only being reported, it is becoming interactive through viewer comments. News can be more static online. Instant updates can be posted and now we are seeing more live streams. We can generalize that the presence of the news on the Net will continue to grow and the way it is delivered will be enhanced. 

Does reality and tabloid media corrupt our politics and frame the message?

I believe that reality and tabloid media does corrupt our politics. This out of the norm, gossipy, and highly opinionated form of media can frame messages that are broadcast in such a way that truth is distorted and people's minds are negatively influenced.  I often ask myself, How real is reality TV? Tabloids make money by producing drama, making insinuations, and by publishing stories that are mutated. "The thrill of the kill through tainted messages fuels the capitalism of corruption." - Deneene A. Collins 

Since I always seem to have something to say I hope to bring you more interesting content soon on Deneene Says...

Smoking, Campaigning, Polling, and Fundraising

In regards to the 2012 Presidential Election, the issues at hand remind me of the typical sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll issues from the 50's, 60's and 70's. We are now in the 21st Century and these are the questions we ask in a radical new millennium:

Does America Need a Smoke Break?:

With over a million and a half views Herman Cain's "Now is the time for action!" ad has more than twice as many "dislikes" as it does "likes" on YouTube. The number of people who have disliked this ad is sending out a powerful message about the ad as it appears on the the second largest search engine in the world after Google. Personally, I thought the first part of the ad was fine and communicated a good message, but what's up with Mark Block smoking a cigarette at the end and why does Herman Cain's face look so weird at the end of the ad? We are living in a time where there is a focus on being fit and smoking is being outlawed in public places almost everywhere in the U.S. The message to unite America is good but what do they want America to do once it's united, get together and smoke a cigarette? Whether or not people agree with the message, it is quite brilliant in many ways. The strategy to go viral on YouTube while communicating that everyone has their own right of choice all while stirring things up equals mass publicity with an "In your face I don't care about your thinking your better than somebody else attitude." This controversial ad is dumb to some and smart to others, but the huge thing about it is that people are continuing to talk about it and even the ones that don't like it have watched it multiple times aiding in its viral status. Cain, who once claimed to being ignored by the media isn't being ignored anymore. He's a business man and he's shaking things up. I guess you could say, "Herman Cain's ad is smokin'."

Late night comedic talk shows ate this ad up thus giving Cain's campaign even more free publicity. When I watched the ad I thought about are current president being a smoker when he was voted into office. I'm just glad that you can't suffer from second-hand smoke through a YouTube video or television commercial. If I were to have produced this ad myself I think I would have place a no smoking sign at the end of it to add even more controversy. There are people that have smoke coming out of their ears over this ad and they may be the very ones that need to realize that America needs a figurative smoke break. The office of the president of the United States is an office that marries the American people. A lot of people are looking for a mate that is a good boy with a little bad boy in them. It looks like Herman Cain has a little rebel in him, and while I don't agree with a pro-smoking message; I do think we need a revolution of change, and revolutions are led by those that go against the grain. I'm not supporting Herman Cain, I'm just acknowledging his ability to lead a possible revolt to change what needs to be changed. I've always been who I am without caring what others think about me and I respect other who do the same. Nevertheless, Herman Cain's face at the end of the ad is still a bit creepy to me, and before fully analyzing the ad I was confused about its overall message. 

Does the early bird (candidate) get the worm when it comes to political polling?

If you haven't read the book Game Change covering the behind the scenes actions of the 2008 presidential election, read it. I feel that this book confirms that the early bird doesn't always get the worm. In regards to a presidential election what I'm saying is that what the early polls report don't always dictate the final outcome. Sometimes however, polls do accurately predict the future. The game can change at anytime. Many times, more often than not, the results of the polls pick the winner ahead of time. Sometimes the early polls lack the insight of reality failing to see the possible game change or hidden strategy of a candidate. While I think the early numbers do matter I also believe they can be deceptive when it comes to true outcomes. The early bird candidate in the polls will not always be the one that ultimately gets the worm. The polls are a guide that can sometimes lead beliefs of expected victories in the wrong direction. They are still a good statistical indicator of what is probable or what will most likely happen, but the true lead and majority vote can change at any time. Early numbers may matter and they may not matter. How much early numbers in the polls matter depends on how much change a candidate is able to bring to the race despite what is forging against them. 

Do big or media endorsements put the "sign" in significance for a political campaign?

Having media endorsements seem pretty important to presidential candidates but they don't always mean a win for them. It is interesting however how in recent years the Democratic party has been favored in media endorsements and they are on top in Washington. Many studies have also shown that candidates with a lot of media favor don't succeed in their efforts to hold office. More favor in the media is of course better than less. Hilary Clinton was thrilled in the book Game Change when she received her media endorsement. I don't think there is any rhyme or reason to this, nor do i think media endorsements put the "sign" in significance for a political campaign, but I do think these endorsements are important and can play a vital role. 

Are political donation guidelines a fair space for candidates to color their campaign within?

It is important to have guidelines when it comes to making political donations and raising campaign funds. Are the guidelines fair? For the most part I think they are. There are restrictions on amounts that can be given by any one individual and when giving significant amounts names do have to be disclosed. There are however some loopholes and ways around identity disclosure in some circumstances. Also, it takes a whole lot of people with shallow pockets to keep up with the few with deep pockets. When reading the article from the New York Times "From $25 to $10,000,000: A Guide to Political Donations" I was reminded of the line from the movie Aladdin, "You've heard of the golden rule haven't you? He who has the gold makes the rules." I guess I would say the guidelines are fair, but the truth is that the one with the most money can do more, say more, and influence more and I'm not sure if that is fair. 

Deneene Says...Choose not to smoke if you can while retaining your power of choice, don't believe the hype even if it's the first thing you see, know for yourself those who big companies or the media endorse, and make sure the donations that support the candidate you support are fair and not some political carnival act. 

I'll speak with you again soon with more political news. 

PAF 494 Blog #12 - How Political Ads Add Up

What Deneene Says About Political Ads:

I’ve been on YouTube surfing political ads and oh what a ride it has been. The first ad I watched was Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m Not a Witch” ad for Senate. Maybe if she was a witch the ad would have been a bit more magical. Take a look at the ad for yourself at the following link and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs

The first thing O’Donnell does is defend herself and then she tries to come across sincere by stating, “I am you.” I’m sorry Christine, but you certainly aren’t me or anybody else you’re broadcasting to; you’re YOU. While people share like ideas, passions, and beliefs, we are all different and that is what makes us individual, unique, and special. She doesn’t even know me so how can she go to Washington and do what I would do? As a matter of fact if she goes to Washington to do what I would do she would find herself cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, and studying for exams in the Senate. I know I’m being a bit sarcastic to get my point across, but come on!

I vote people into office to do what they do best on my behalf and in the best interests of the American people. Do you Christine; do you in a way that will help others and be real. Tell people what you’re passionate about, where you stand on various issues, and what you will really do to cause a positive effect in Washington. If you told me that at least I would know how much like me you are. I give this vague and sappy ad zero stars. Christine O’Donnell’s ad is officially on the Deneene Says... chopping block.

I heard the song “Another One Bites the Dust” playing in my head as I watched Ben Quayle’s ad for Congress. Ben says that, “Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out the place.” Really Ben? Seriously? I think that anybody that starts their ad by drastically insulting the president of the United States and then blames him for all the current problems of our country whether they like or agree with him or not needs the hell knocked of them. Take a look at Quayle’s ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG08nR475s4

I don’t want any person that doesn’t understand protocol or practice common decency and wisdom representing me in Congress. My name is Deneene Collins and I don’t approve Ben Quayle’s message. Ben’s ad gets two thumbs down from me and it’s on the chopping block right next to Christine O’Donnell’s ad. They should have lunch.

Claire McCaskill threw down a trump card with her double whammy celebrity-endorsed ad. Who doesn’t love Michael J. Fox? Celebrity ads work wonders in boosting product sales even if the product is a political candidate. The three million plus views shows the power of celebrity endorsement alone, but the use of a Parkinson’s afflicted Michael J. Fox speaking on his support of McCaskill supported stem-cell research is almost if not pure genius. To tell you the truth I don’t know how I feel about this ad, but I think it is highly strategic carrying great emotional influence. I wonder how much Michael J. Fox got paid to do the ad or if he believes in Claire McCaskill’s cause enough to have done the ad for free. If I were running for office and was able to choose a celebrity to endorse me I think I would choose the eTrade Baby and have him say something like he wishes he was old enough to vote so he could vote for me. While McCaskill’s ad survived elimination, I don’t have a rating for it just yet. You can view the ad at the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo

Obama and others have proved the power of social media in a successful campaign. Social media now has a place in current and future political races as strong as place newspapers and television have held in the past. A huge number of voters are online and the social media marketplace is the place to be for today’s candidates. I actually like Michelle Bachmann’s ad. It was genuine, upbeat, crisp, clean, and to the point. Her ad was one of the first I’ve seen with a call to social media. Bachmann escaped elimination. I give her ad four out of five stars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv

The blog I posted last week entitled “Maniacal Political Marketing & The Social Media Advertising Revolution” voiced my opinions on the first ads for the 2012 presidential election. I didn’t care for the mudslinging or negative campaigning approaches used by Perry and Romney, I learned a ton of information about Michelle Bachmann through her ad, and I felt that Obama’s ad was pretty good touching on the key points he needed to touch on. This week I’d like to share with you two of my favorite political ads.

1.) I like Dr. Dwight McKenna’s ad for coroner even though it accused his opponent of organ theft because it was funny and slightly dramatic. I thought this ad communicated a clear message and I like the imagination involved in the execution of it. No pun intended. It was just a clever ad; not clever enough to gain a win, but clever indeed. I felt like I was watching a Frankenstein movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRgCOXaiDjQ

2.) I like Dale Peterson’s ad for Alabama Agriculture Commissioner. The ad has a real “home on the range” feel that is so American. The ad is no nonsense and vocally strong. The background ads to the flavor of the ad and the gun on Dale’s shoulder portrays him as country boy that means business who will not be taking any prisoners. I also like how Dale Peterson endorses John McMillan after he loses. That is honorable and shows good sportsmanship plus it’s funny. Dale Peterson watches the people’s backs he believes in. See both ads below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabMEHfCjT0

3.) Honorable Mention: Mike Weinstein’s rappin’ ad was upbeat and innovative as it connected to a younger crowd with music and dancing. He’s a risk taker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byn8ZD6kckg&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL53CD0CD4F543E150

What Deneene Says About One Current Political News Story:

Political news stories are advertisements also. Is there really any such thing as bad publicity? Some would say so and I think one of those people might be Herman Cain. On October 30th, 2011 The Daily Caller, Yahoo News, and Lucianne.Com all blasted the headline, “Cain campaign accuses Politico of ‘unsubstantiated personal attacks’. The story was about sexual harassment allegations made against Herman Cain by two unnamed females over a decade ago. The post on Lucianne.Com actually links back to the original story on The Daily Caller. All the news outlets I read the story on reported the exact same account and implied that people that don’t agree with Herman Cain’s politics are just trying to shake things up for him. The stories only report possible inappropriate sexual comments, innuendos, and gestures, but no actual sexual activity with any of the accusers.

It would be nice to see or hear a different view of this story, but I haven’t been able to find one. Differing opinions helps to create diversified dialogue among voters which can work in a candidates favor when one story is positive helping to outweigh or balance out the negative. Regardless, what is published in the media is deposited in the minds of the voters influencing public opinion whether the information is true or false. A lot of people believe what they read even if it isn’t substantiated and that makes it ever so important. Thoughts can be retrained and redirected, but they can rarely be erased. Even the people that forgive rarely if ever forget. The media jumps on a story and sows it like seeds for better or for worse marrying the subject of the story infinitely to its content.

I’ll be coming back to you again soon with more political rhetoric to stimulate your political hungry mind. Until then...remember what Deneene Says...

PAF 494 Blog #11 - Maniacal Political Marketing & The Social Media Advertising Revolution

The political ad season has begun making it clear that Halloween is not the only scary thing in October. While all political ads are not all propaganda, the majority of them that gain the majority vote are. Sadly enough, what I call "Maniacal Political Marketing" seems to work for many who use it. The first six letters of maniacal spells "maniac" and some of the tactics being used my politicians to gain an edge are absolutely nuts. When watching the Perry ad about Romneycare I could have sworn I was looking a movie tailer for the next big horror film. It was so dramatic it gave me a craving for popcorn with extra movie theater butter. The fact of the matter is that people are visual, auditory, and emotional. This type of dramatic advertising is effective because it stirs up the emotions in the subconscious mind that in turn ignite human emotion thus provoking action on the part of many viewers. 

Again we see in the Romney for President ad on the Obama Misery Index an approach that is used to touch the human essence and tie into emotion, just in a less dramatic way. If you go to a foreign country the best way to communicate is in the language of the land you are visiting. This ad used a real person to speak in a language that many that are suffering economically can relate to and understand. I think this ad would have been just as effective if it used the same interview, but focused on how Romney has an open ear to this specific community telling people how he will work to make things better rather than painting Obama in a negative light. President Obama needs to accomplish several things in his ads: 1.) He needs to vividly display and focus on any and all progress that has been made in America under his leadership, 2.) He must keep the positive momentum of the message of hope and unity in this country, and 3.) He will have to prove why he is worthy of 4 more years on the throne in Washington by creating and communicating a trademark vision for our country's future. Obama will have to advertise the New American Dream with veracity, integrity, and performance. His job is cut out for him which is to keep his current supporters while managing to gain new ones; this is tactical and strategic marketing combined with customer relationship management and retention speaking in business terms. Obama has to plant new seeds that will grow along side what he has already accomplished. President Obama's first 2012 campaign ad does in fact highlight his accomplishments so far, poses him as a man of honor, power, and courage, displays a message of unity and hope, shows him as a fun-loving everyday type person you would want to be friends with, and is forward reaching by stating that America needs more change that should occur under his leadership. The ad did give me a warm fuzzy feeling which was killed by him riding on the democratic donkey followed by a rainbow at the end. I liked the ad overall, but felt the ending piece was a little cheesy. 

The massive amount of information that can be communicated in thirty seconds or less is nothing short of amazing. What I learned about Michelle Bachmann in twenty-eight seconds was probably as much as I would have learned listening to her deliver a forty-five minute speech. I learned that she comes from a long heritage of Iowans and that she was born and raised in Waterloo, Iowa. She's a mother of five which includes being a foster mother. Michelle has worked to create small business jobs and believes that our government has to stop spending money that it doesn't. I found out that Michelle Bachmann is a former tax lawyer and she was against the bailouts and stimulus that have occurred in America. She firmly stated that she will not vote to increase the debt ceiling again, and she is confident that her campaign is unified to defeat Obama. Michelle Bachmann is not afraid to broadcast her position on the economic issues of this country. When looking back at Perry's, Romney's, Bachmann's, and Obama's ads I would have to say that they were all effective in different ways. It is funny because I think the conservative's ads were more liberal and liberal's ads were more conservative. Perry and Romney formed nooses for their opponents with their ads in different ways while Bachmann and Obama projected the feel good ads that boosted up who they are as people with little sparkles almost coming from their accomplishments. 

President Obama plugged into the power of social media during the 2008 Presidential Election with astounding results. I believe what we are seeing now in social media entities stepping into the political realm is an inevitable evolution of technology in politics. While there are two main political parties in America there is only one American Eagle that represents freedom, strength, and grandeur. Birds of a feather do flock together and Twitter is now rubbing shoulders, or should I say wings with our inspiring feathered friend that serves as our nation's emblem. It makes perfect sense; it makes social sense. For politicians it is going to make dollars and cents. "The early bird gets the worm," on Twitter and other social media sites. Twitter already has an "I will follow you" mentality so it is a good place to be as a presidential candidate or any other type of political candidate. Social media is where people are today and with the sense of community it offers it is the right place to reach both active and passive voters. Facebook is all about connecting, friending, fanning, and liking, and it is where a candidate that wants to present themselves as a real person needs to be. I still think that television will provide a huge platform for political advertising especially to reach passive voters and while I say this we must keep in mind that people are now watching television on the Internet. With a lot of people embracing Netflix to watch their favorite movies and shows, I wonder how long it will be before Netflix gets in on the political advertising circuit. In any case, I think the social media political ads are an excellent strategy and something that was bound to happen. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Youtube are becoming huge political platforms with political savvy staff members on board; I'm glad that these social media entities are not partisan as they remain neutral in political matters working only as an avenue for information and communication. I'm going to go update my facebook status, tweet on my Twitter page, Google something interesting, and watch a video on Youtube right now so I'll speak with you again later on Deneene Says..."The blog that tells you what's up and what's going down."

PAF 494 Blog #10 - Geniuses of Journalism and Love

Throughout the years we have all heard the statement, "There's a thin line between love and hate." There may be an even thinner line between journalism and activism so journalists have to be careful in order not to cross the line. I believe that some journalists go from one side of the line to the other from time to time as their own beliefs, opinions, and passions are injected into what their reporting on. For the most part I agree that many good journalists have remained objective when reporting on the economic-related protests, but at the same time I will say that cheerleading for a specific group and their viewpoints can be viewed as a form of activism. While watching reporting on the Wall Street Protesters I noticed that many reporters asked the opinions of various presidential candidates on the issue which provided an open door to media influence by way of the responses of those who were asked. The consensus from most was that a real change will have to come from Washington. I personally would like to see more facts stated on the issue rather than coverage on the drama of the whole event. 

When it's all about the Benjamin's, I mean all about the ratings; the conquest to be the best doesn't always mean presenting better news unfortunately. Competition among cable news outlets can turn a great journalist into a media jockey that is slapping the news horse in whatever way it takes to make it run faster than the others. If cable news gets too far away from reporting the facts they may find the sidewalks in front of their studios looking a lot like Wall Street does these days full of protesters. I think competition among cable news outlets should be approached like ABC tackled it with their Yahoo News merger. The idea is to use technology to expand the reach rather than stretch the story. Competition in itself is healthy while hyper-competition can be damaging to the networks, to those featured on the networks, and to the viewers. No matter how things change in regards to the mediums used to deliver news, it is important for journalists to stay true to what makes journalism good, respectable, and full of integrity. Facts can be reported with passion and enthusiasm and still remain the facts. If there is going to be any competition in this arena it should be the type of competition that brings about better news with accuracy, conscious communication, and excellent articulation. Anybody who wants anything other than that can pick up The Inquirer.

Being a great journalist comes down to loving what you do. Steve Jobs said, "The only way to do great work is to love what you do." Steve was right in making this statement and his very life exemplified this. I have less money than I've ever had right now, but I'm more successful than I've ever been because I'm finally doing what I love. When my mom died I came to the realization that any day could be my last day so when disappointing things happen I ask myself if it were my last day on earth would I want to spend it feeling sad or upset. I am in love with doing what I love and it is what I will do for the rest of my life. I used to waste time doing whatever I felt it took to make it (pay my bills), and I did this all while robbing myself and others of the talents and gifts I have to contribute to mankind. My brother has a brilliant mind, but he is too busy working on his job to give any time to manifesting his dreams. Not many days ago I told him these words, "Don't sacrifice what you want to do on the altar of what you have to do."

I'm a firm believer that prosperity lies in the place of your purpose. You may not see it when you first start just like most don't get an engagement ring on their first date with someone; know and believe that it will come. If we don't have hope, there's no point in having a dream. I've made a commitment to myself to always do what I love to do. We all have genius in different areas. You will witness a fish's genius arise in the water, you will witness a bird's genius arise in the air, and you will witness your genius emerge when you start doing what you love to do. If Steve Jobs accomplished what he accomplished without a formal or traditional education, how much more can I/we do with one as long as we are all focusing on the right things? My job is to build it; everyone else's job who appreciates what I've built or what I'm building is to come. Regardless of my IQ, today I am genius, I am the valedictorian of passion, I am a writer who loves writing, and I will change the world one word at a time because I am operating in the heart of my existence. 

PAF 494 Blog #9 - Reality TV Past, Present, and Future

Though it is claimed that reality television shows have existed since the early days of television broadcasting, there is no doubt that this peculiar species of televised programming has dramatically evolved and even exploded in popularity over the last decade.  The way I see it, the news has always been reality TV, but with the progression of cable news, biased news reporting, and up-to-the-minute coverage of controversial political battles; what we are about to witness in the political new arena will pale in comparison to Survivor. There will be a survivor alright, and the best man or woman is not guaranteed to win because this is a survival of the fittest, or should I say, "the most fit media-savvy personalities and users?" The presidential race is rapidly turning into what I call an American Political Idol competition. The media is putting a flame under the feet of presidential candidates to see who sings the best under media fire. I'm surprised that cable news is the only political reality TV show out there. I asked myself what I would call such a show if I were to produce a political reality television show. The only ideas I came up with were either The Next American President or Save the Drama for Obama. If you see a show of this type emerge, remember that you heard it here first. 

I live in Arizona where the new west has been built on top of the old west. With advancements in crime-reduction technology, it always amazes me when I see a story about a bank robbery on the news. How can bank robbers still get away with their crimes in this present day? I'm baffled over this subject especially as I see a nation of people being robbed daily by misinforming and highly opinionated news as traumatic and demeaning as a stagecoach or bank robbery in the old west. I'm not a thief by any means, but I have a great personality and if I can steal the hearts of the American public through strategically-focused media coverage; maybe I should run for president. If I decide to do so at any point in the future I want you to know now that some of the negative things you will hear about me may be true, but I didn't inhale. The nation however may have to inhale political medical marijuana as we seem to be suffering from both a social glaucoma and cancer of sorts. The proper radiation to help cure disease in U.S. politics would be a radiant candidate that is more concerned and committed to solving our country's issues than they are supporting their own ego while forging attacks on others' character. 

While there may be a game of cat and mouse going on in U.S. politics, there is a ferocious dog barking known as the media that will keep the sly cats in check allowing the mice to get a little cheese. Since we are discussing animals let's talk about the FOX. One biblical reference states that it is the small foxes that spoil or obtain the grapes. For me this means that sometimes it is the small things that will gain a person victory like the small but large media advantages that Obama used to win the presidency. I once heard that if you remove the letter "U" from the English language that you lose 3000 words. I'm not sure how true this is, but it displays how important small things are. Even if 3000 words weren't lost a large number of them would be and something as small as one letter matters. There is still no "I" in team and "U" matters as "YOU" matter a lot. 

I watched a video about Obama's media advantage specifically in regards to the upcoming election coverage. Does Obama have an advantage when it comes to media? I think yes. Is this advantage enough? I don't know. The video stated that though Obama and democrats in general have media favor that the American public is pretty much ruled by conservative republicans. The video expressed that though Obama and liberal democrats are favored by the media it isn't enough to help a candidate secure the presidential office. This is both true and false. It is true because republicans have won seven out of the last 11 elections as stated in the video. It is false because in spite of a republican dominated winning streak Obama used every aspect of media favor from newspapers, to television, and especially new and social media to dismantle the republican stronghold on election success. While I believe Obama will have some media advantage in the upcoming election, I believe it won't be enough to get him reelected. Hopefully people will vote for the best candidate for the job in spite of the political reality TV sideshows and superstar larger than life images some candidates will manage to pull off. I can't help but to think about comedian Richard Pryor running for Mayor of New York in the movie Brewster's Millions when he launched a campaign for people to vote for, "None of the Above." He was expressing in the fictitious movie that there wasn't a candidate worthy of holding the office and by doing so he stood to win. Media is powerful, especially when it communicates something the people/voters want to hear and believe to be true. 

I've watched all types of news from local and national broadcast news to cable news programs. Cable news has definitely reached Hollywood status and when I watch it I sometimes wonder if I'm looking at a televised tabloid or viewing a schoolyard fight by adults that act like children. While I missed out on some of the popular cable news programs this week I did catch the CNN News Room and Fox News Sunday tonight. There was coverage of similar issues in different ways. While there was no Walter Cronkite stating the way it was, there were descendants of Uncle Walt reporting on the dependents of Uncle Sam. A new breed of journalists have been birthed onto the scene of political news telling all accurately and inaccurately about those that depend on Uncle Sam. When I refer to those that depend on Uncle Sam I'm talking about all that depend on the government from the American people to the elected officials that are employed by the government having been placed there by the people. 

I watched reality political TV tonight and I can confer that it isn't the best thing to watch before a night's rest if you want to have sweet dreams let alone the American Dream. A couple topics of interest were Mitt Romney's religious beliefs, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gender equality. The reporting on CNN was straight forward but somewhat boring. They covered the topics with brief bursts of gray-shaded information and when it came to allowing various people to speak their opinions those freely-opinionated expressions seemed to be cut short. The news reports left me wanting more. I wanted to hear the full expressions. I wanted to know what people really thought and I wanted to hear what they really had to say. The Mitt Romney issue of being a Mormon as reported on CNN talked about Pastor Robert Jeffress' comment that Mormonism is a cult. They then brought on some CNN contributors to state their views as to whether or not religious affiliation should matter in a presidential election. They also brought on some other presidential candidates to voice their views on the matter such as Michele Bachmann who danced around answering the question and stated that this isn't what people are talking about. The following day CNN took the angle that the Mormonism cult comment could have been an arranged attack on Romney by Perry's campaign. Oh boy...here we go.

While the news on CNN was a little dry Fox News was like sitting in front of someone squeezing an orange. It was juicy, more exciting, and like a controversial reality show. It seemed like the Fox News reporter was baiting the interviewee only to make statements to debunk him or prove him wrong based on what he said. I watched an interview with republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. He was distinctly and rather abruptly asked about his views on Mormonism being a cult and how he felt about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" issue regarding free homosexual sex orientation expression in the military. When asked if he thought Mormonism was a cult Santorum replied, "no." When asked if he thought Mitt Romeny was a true Christian he replied, "If he says he is I believe he is what he says he is." He also stated that the presidential race should be based on qualifications and competency to do the job and not necessarily on religious affiliation or beliefs. His interview which was more like a debate seemed to prevent a slight struggle when it came to the question on gay rights in the military. Previously he had been questioned by soldier Stephen Hill serving in Iraq if he planned to reinstate "Don't Ask Don't Tell" if he were to come into the office of president. His response was of such that he was in favor of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and he expressed his firm beliefs that sexual orientation equality as a behavior and racial equality as a skin color issue are clearly different and not in any way the same. Santorum also verbalized that knowing someone you are serving with in the military is openly gay can affect a person's living and performance since heterosexuals are in close living quarters with homosexuals whom they bunk and shower with, etc. 

The Fox News reporter brought up a quote by Colonel Eugene Householder who was in the Army general's office in 1941 when he said, "The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with army policy in a time of war would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale and would result in ultimate defeat." Colonel Householder made this statement when he was arguing against racial integration in the military over 70 years ago. Fox News was definitely more edgy, confrontational, and challenging. It was almost like the interviewer was working to trap the interviewee. CNN reporters operated in a largely different fashion from Fox News reporters. When civil rights activist Reverend Joseph Lowery was questioned on CNN about same-sex marriage and gay rights he wasn't pressured or patronized but was simply allowed to answer the question in a non-debate setting. His reply I'm sure was shocking to most as a man of the cloth voiced the evolution of his views. He expressed that equal rights are equal rights no matter what the issue is and that every person has a right to choose how they live and what they opt to do with that human-afforded power of choice. He proclaimed equal rights for all. 

Local Main Streets to the most popular avenues in Washington, D.C. seem to have been turned into the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Politicians are stars, news is skewed, and humility hides in the back alleys of truth as presidential candidates smile for the paparazzi. Cable news networks do the unspeakable as they fight over ratings as candidates do something similar leaving opponents lying in pools of blood in a fight to the death for popularity and prestige where the murder weapon has been their smoking mouths shot off like guns fully loaded. There was a movie called Bruce Almighty where a news reporter gained the powers of God for a period of time. During this time he learned some valuable lessons about responsibility and the abuse of power. His tag line became, "And that's how the cookie crumbles." Some people like their cookies crisp and some like them soft, but I think all prefer them made with naturally wholesome ingredients like I'm sure they wish the news was made of. Too many journalists think they are "God" these days and that the political sun rises and sets with what they have to say. I don't know all the answers and all that Deneene Says today is...

That is the way is was, is, and will be. This is Deneene Collins signing off with News for an America that really wants to know the TRUTH. Reality TV is a broadcast phenomenon which I believe is scripted from time to time no matter how real it seems.