Gaffes and the Internet Make for Great News

Everybody has had a slip of the tongue once before, and when one talks as much as a politician, one is bound to slip up more often than others.  No big deal...unless there is a recording device and an internet connection near by.

ICT has made the political gaffe more damaging (and often times more entertaining) than ever before.  Fifteen years ago, a gaffe that was caught on film would usually make its way to Saturday Night Live (SNL), air once, and be talked about amongst friends.  However, in today’s world, a gaffe can be caught by a cell phone camera and viewed thousands of times all across the world before the next day is over.

There is no amount of spin that can control a video gaffe once it has gone viral.  Take for example Virginia Senatorial candidate, George Allen.  He was caught calling his opponents Indian-American campaign staffer a racial-slur.

Then there is media darling and gaffe machine, Sarah Palin.  She had a gaffe that was so painful the actual clip and the SNL parody both went viral.   It is tough for a politician to refocus the narrative once the public has emailed, posted, Tweeted, and Youtube’d the clip millions of times.  

One gaffe that essentially ended a presidential run was this legendary (and frankly painful to watch) debate flub from Gov. Rick Perry.

Some gaffes are candid looks at the real character of the candidate, while other are simply a slip of the tongue, but regardless, both types go viral.  ICT can help politicians get favorable news coverage or it can damage a career, either way, it has added a new wrinkle in the way the public consumes political news.  

I'd like to finish this post with some of my favorite political gaffes: George W. Bush, Herman Cain, Joe Biden, George W. Bush (again), and lastly we have Joe Biden (again).

Highlights, Scores, and Tweets

Most of my posts have been about ICT's effect on hard-hitting political news.  The sort of thing political nerds like me enjoy. However, technology has also had an enormous impact on the creation and consumption of sports news.  For years, sports news was delivered by your local television news anchor and the sports page in the news paper.  So when ESPN and SportsCenter first aired in 1979 many thought sports around the clock was a crazy idea.

Legendary Anchorman Ron Burgundy was one such individual.

However, those individuals could not have been more wrong.  Now, in addition to those traditional outlets, we have ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3, ESPN 8, ESPN News, ESPNU, ESPN Deportes, and ESPN Classic.  As well as, FOX Sports Net, the Tennis Channel, the Big Ten Network, NBA TV, and NFL Satellite packages just to name a few.  Those are just television outlets, the amount of websites devoted to sports news coverage is absurd.

The real challenge wrought by ICT is that there are only so many sports scores one can report, and only so many highlights to fill one day.

As a result, the networks have to report on other aspects of sports-related news.  Players personal lives and locker room drama are often perfect fodder to fill the airwaves.

Here are a few recent Twitter posts that the 24 hour sports news cycle has decided to cover.

Nike Designer Mocks Derrick Rose
  *The guy who designs LeBron James' shoes mocked Bulls guard Derrick Rose after he tore his ACL

IndyCar fines Panther Racing's John Barnes $25,000
  *In this instance the fine was due to a "critical comment" made on Twitter

Tebow's back on Twitter and yes, he's still excited
  *As you likely inferred, this "news" story is about Tim Tebow's first four tweets as a Jet.  I'm serious.

Kevin Love tweets 'stache, fans respond
  *And my personal favorite "news" story....well, its pretty self explanatory.

In today's ICT world, a Tweet can get just as much coverage as a win.  Fortunately, I believe that sports fans will always be more interested in whether or not Roger Federer can reclaim the #1 seed than in whether or not Kevin Love can grow facial hair.  Technology allows fans to keep tabs on both.

Evolution of Television News: Interview with Jim Rogers Part II

Here is Part II of II of my interview with Las Vegas media mogul, news man, and member of the Carey Business School Board of Overseers, Jim Rogers.  See Part I here:


The topics discussed in this clip are; the wide array of news sources that are now available and access to international news.  It was interesting that Mr. Rogers agreed with my sentiments in this previous post regarding the variety of news outlets and opinions.

How has technology changed the news business?

"As the needs have grown the solutions have grown, too."

Evolution of Television News: Interview with Jim Rogers Part I

I had the pleasure of sitting down with a member of the Carey Business School Board of Overseers last week, Jim Rogers.  He is an attorney, philanthropist, and the founder and owner of Intermountain West Communications Company.  His company operates NBC and FOX affiliates in 11 different media markets in the Sunbelt region.

Mr. Rogers first entered the media business in the 1970's.  Since then, he has seen how the industry has evolved in an era of 24-hour cable news and the internet.  He also has a passion for bringing news to local markets.  See Part II here.

How can television news compete with changes in technology?

"This is the standard now, and we were lucky then and we're not quite as lucky now"

FW: Network Effects, Word of Mouth, and Death Panels

Everybody has received at least one forwarded email that claims to know the truth about what a politician was really doing during Vietnam, or in what country a president was actually born.  These are just silly and somewhat annoying rumors, nothing news worthy.  

However, sometimes an email rumor becomes so widespread that news worthy individuals make comments about the lie, and as a result, the news media reports on what is blatantly untrue.  This past November, The Washington Post published a great article that explored the political email rumor mill.  It found that conservatives send the vast majority of blatantly untrue emails that fuel this email rumor mill.  More importantly, it neatly ties this phenomenon into the subject of my blog with this excerpt:

"Changes in the news media landscape have also helped lies to thrive. A generation or more ago, powerful gatekeepers — large newspapers, broadcast networks, a news magazine or two — dominated the dissemination of national news. No more.

“There was a mainstream media that acted as a filter,” says Bill Adair, the editor of PolitiFact. Now, the filter is overwhelmed. “The Internet is a megaphone that spreads conspiracies quickly before there’s anyone to correct the facts,” he says. “There’s no one between your crazy uncle and his address book.”"

This is a very astute observation, and one that I can relate to.  I have a crazy conservative uncle who always forwards me emails.  I love my uncle, but I know that whatever he sends me is junk mail.  I trust his word on matters of life, but just not in matters that involve President Obama’s religion or death panels. 

ICT, in the form of email, has given rumors great reach.  One reason that some of these rumors are able to get so far is because the originators have no concern about the richness of the message.  They have no concern for truth.  The originators use modern day word of mouth, or email, to disseminate their message. 

Whereas I delete the message and keep it from spreading to my network, there are those who read it and believe it.  Furthermore, there are some who read it and are so shocked to find that their president is secretly Muslim that they forward it on to their network.

In this instance, in order for a lie to gain validity in the email rumor mill it must be sent by an individual whose word is trusted in his or her network.  Since most email address books are filled with friends and family, trust already exists.  However, the only people who trust political rumors and are willing to forward the email on are typically already biased.  In the end, you have networks of like-minded people reading, forwarding, and believing the same lies.  

Legitimate Contenders

According to the Pulitzer Prizes’ website, “The iconic Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal is awarded each year to the American newspaper that wins the Public Service category.”   In 2009, Pulitzer began considering internet based sources as well.  This year, the winner of the National Reporting category was David Wood, writer at the Huffington Post blog, for his series on wounded soldiers.

So just to recap, a blog was awarded the most esteemed honor in journalism.

Writer Ben Schwartz asks a legitimate question.

If you are unfamiliar with the Huffington Post (aka HuffPo) I encourage you to take a moment and peruse the site.  You will notice that its pages link to thousands of different stories written by hundreds of different contributors broken into dozens of categories.  These categories include: Politics, Comedy, Gay Voices, Culture, Weird News, and Tech.  This is hardly what one thinks about when considering a newspaper that performs a public service.

However, as ICT has change the way news is created and consumed, a blog with endless reach, topics, and contributors is considered on par with news outlets known for journalistic integrity.

The three aforementioned categories are indicative of the changes ICT has made on the news industry.

First, is the wide reach of the blog.  Last December it totaled around 1 billion unique visits.  With this many people reading HuffPo's contents, something is bound to have an impact with someone, right?

Second, is the myriad of topics.  In the “blogosphere”, endless topics can be covered with little to no concern over a word count or page space.  This provides flexibility for a 10-part series like the one that won David Wood and HuffPo a Pulitzer.  It also attracts a wide swath of readers by allowing a blog to not get pigeon holed as covering too narrow a scope, i.e. The Financial Times.

Lastly, and in my opinion most concerning, is the amount of contributors.  The content providers of this blog are not necessarily professional journalists, authors, columnists, or editors, but they are just people with opinions.  Sometime informed and sometimes not.  ICT has reduced the reliance on editors, and therefore, accountability.

So to answer Ben Schwartz tweet, yes, the HuffPo really did win a Pulitzer.  Regardless of how many uninformed opinions there are in the “blogosphere”, and there are a lot, very well informed and insightful opinions also exist.  I suppose it is time to recognize this fact and to celebrate the news ICT evolution with the Huffington Post and a case of Natural Light. 

That's What I Said!

This very interesting article from last Thursday's Washington Post explores the biological differences between the way liberals and conservatives think.  Apparently, tests show that they are wired with opposing personalities, and hence, accept different realities.  Makes sense to me.  Then there is the following sentences from the article:

"We have access to the same news but we no longer consume the same news.  The biological differences are exacerbated by the fact that we only read what we want.  RSS, Google Alerts, blogs, etc."

Exactly!  That sentiment is exactly in line with what my blog is about.  In my opinion, the heightened polarization of America has less to do with politics itself and more to do with the parochial scope in which people view politics.  This narrow mindedness is largely due to ICT's effect on the way people access news.

Today, RSS feeds and Google alerts have removed the diversity of ideas from peoples day.  For example, people no longer flip through the newspaper to see op-eds written by columnists of opposing views.  A liberal may set his or her alerts to see the new Thomas Friedman piece, while a conservative may get one about the latest Charles Krauthammer op-ed.  Depending on which article you read, President Obama is either Israel's greatest friend or her greatest foe.  The point is, due to ICT, people only see one slanted side of any issue.

Additionally, the proliferation of cable news has led to very different channels of thought (pun intended).  For example, a conservative is more prone to watch Fox News whereas a liberal may change the channel to MSNBC.  Same goes for blogs, Huffington Post exists in opposition to the Drudge Report.

Even though ICT has given us access to a worlds worth of knowledge, people tend to seek what they already know.  Increasingly, news just reenforces previously held views.  In other words, we used to interpret the same news differently, but now, due to the evolution of ICT, we simply no longer see the same news.