So not true, Jack. So not true.
As reported by CNNpolitics, "newspapers were flying off the racks" the day after election day. Or, what some of my friends have labeled, "Happy Obama Day."
The article goes on to state that:
"Papers all over the country found crowds of customers outside their buildings clamoring for copies. A one-per-person rule was instituted at the Times' headquarters, and customers were even buying damaged copies after supplies ran out."
Some even restarted their printing presses to churn out more copies. So what does this mean moving forward for the good ole boys working in what some have said to be a dying business? And on a local level, I have to wonder, how did the RTD fair?
I have to think back to Sept. 11, 2001 when I too was out to grab any and every paper I could find the day after 9/11 and the days to follow. It's owning a piece of history; holding it right there in your hands. And I suppose "saving a copy of a Web page on a disk isn't the same."
But true to form, as I'm sure many others did, I went back to getting my information online -- old habits die hard and as I'm sure we'll find in the coming months, change doesn't happen that quickly.
Almost a month ago Media General, owners of our local disgrace for a newspaper, reported:
"Total revenues decreased 18.2 percent, and newspaper advertising revenues declined 21.5 percent. "
and that
"Revenues declined 16.4 percent in Virginia ... Excluding severance from both years, Publishing Division expenses declined 9.9 percent for the quarter driven by an 11 percent decline in salaries, reflecting savings from staff reductions, benefits and profit sharing."
If newspapers are going to have a second shot at making it back to the top, or at least competing in the same realm as online news sources, there are two things they need to realize. The first, embrace local content. Take what is happening on a national level and make it local.
The second, embrace an online sister or partner publication. Not so much the way the RTD has done Richmond.com (posting the same exact story on both sites and linking back and forth. PATHETIC). But use online features to your advantage. Links, slide shows, videos, audio clips.
But as stated before, humans are creatures of habit and change doesn't happen because of one day's headline.
Also, read about the Washington Post's reaction here.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Who Do You Think You Are?
Alright.
So when I began this blog, it was supposed to focus strictly on the presidential election. Now that that's over (congrats Obama) there's another topic that for the sake of my sanity I MUST write about. Something that takes phrase "shades of gray" to a whole new meaning.
And that is the merger that happened almost a week ago between the good ole independent, alternative web site Richmond.com and the corporate devils at Media General (owners of the Richmond Times Disgrace.)
I hate this company. I hate them. And for more reasons than this one. I know friends and family members who have had the undeniable torture of working there and all I can say is, I'm so very lucky to have been let go when I was.
The story: Our VP was leaving and owner John Whitlock didn't want to (or couldn't) find a substitute and so the best alternative for JW, the businessman, was to sell. And undoubtedly, a good decision for Mr. Whitlock himself.
(I'd also like to take this little opportunity to thank Whitlock for the severance package he let me walk out with. So, thank you! )
I digress; half of us were let go. Writers, designers, programmers...what have you. And compadres, we are better off for it. Those of you left -- get out ASAP. They only wanted Richmond.com for first, the domain name and second, the Richmond Association of Realtors contract.
Congratulations, tah you, MG.
To the RDCers they are trying to brainwash -- they've kept you as a skeleton, but as soon as they transform rdc into the same shitty-ass website that inrich is, you'll be gone. Save yourselves first and tell them to shove it up their asses.
I went away for the weekend after being "let go" and did not return until yesterday. Currently, MG employees (who I promptly labeled "what's his/her name") have torn out the RDC lounge and have giant trashcans in which they are throwing everything away.
Pocket holding, big bellied men and women are walking around the office like the own the place; oh wait...because they do. One of their old, white-haired "tech" guys asked me how to use the copier. I told him I didn't work there and to figure it out for himself.
The staff at RDC aren't even being told what their jobs will be. Only that they need to "prove themselves right now." Oh, and at least for editorial, that they will be working not on stories, but on "packets." I think they also have to actually reapply for a job with MG.
Hmmm, "shades of gray" indeed.
Oh, and really? Prove to you that the people of RDC are about as unimaginative, frumpy, small-minded and lazy as you all are? Kind of difficult there buds, because that is not and will never be what the true RDC is.
I've also been told two, pretty hilarious, things recently:
R.I.P Richmond.com; it was great while it lasted.
So when I began this blog, it was supposed to focus strictly on the presidential election. Now that that's over (congrats Obama) there's another topic that for the sake of my sanity I MUST write about. Something that takes phrase "shades of gray" to a whole new meaning.
And that is the merger that happened almost a week ago between the good ole independent, alternative web site Richmond.com and the corporate devils at Media General (owners of the Richmond Times Disgrace.)
I hate this company. I hate them. And for more reasons than this one. I know friends and family members who have had the undeniable torture of working there and all I can say is, I'm so very lucky to have been let go when I was.
The story: Our VP was leaving and owner John Whitlock didn't want to (or couldn't) find a substitute and so the best alternative for JW, the businessman, was to sell. And undoubtedly, a good decision for Mr. Whitlock himself.
(I'd also like to take this little opportunity to thank Whitlock for the severance package he let me walk out with. So, thank you! )
I digress; half of us were let go. Writers, designers, programmers...what have you. And compadres, we are better off for it. Those of you left -- get out ASAP. They only wanted Richmond.com for first, the domain name and second, the Richmond Association of Realtors contract.
Congratulations, tah you, MG.
To the RDCers they are trying to brainwash -- they've kept you as a skeleton, but as soon as they transform rdc into the same shitty-ass website that inrich is, you'll be gone. Save yourselves first and tell them to shove it up their asses.
I went away for the weekend after being "let go" and did not return until yesterday. Currently, MG employees (who I promptly labeled "what's his/her name") have torn out the RDC lounge and have giant trashcans in which they are throwing everything away.
Pocket holding, big bellied men and women are walking around the office like the own the place; oh wait...because they do. One of their old, white-haired "tech" guys asked me how to use the copier. I told him I didn't work there and to figure it out for himself.
The staff at RDC aren't even being told what their jobs will be. Only that they need to "prove themselves right now." Oh, and at least for editorial, that they will be working not on stories, but on "packets." I think they also have to actually reapply for a job with MG.
Hmmm, "shades of gray" indeed.
Oh, and really? Prove to you that the people of RDC are about as unimaginative, frumpy, small-minded and lazy as you all are? Kind of difficult there buds, because that is not and will never be what the true RDC is.
I've also been told two, pretty hilarious, things recently:
- For all my loyal "Material Girl" (also here, here, here and here) fans, followers and Q94 listeners -- some completely unclassy, not-even-remotely chic biddy will be taking over that column on "the new" RDC.
She will suck. And we will let her know it. - This is my favorite -- "Richmond is a city, but it's small, so watch what you say; you never know who you may have to work with."
To that...I say SUCK IT. Media General is a company I will never, ever, in 48,394,839 years want to or have to work for. I would rather sell my soul to Satan for 50-cents and a quality noogie-sandwich than ever deal with the people who run or work for that company.
And so, as I close this chapter in my life and reset my homepage, it seems only appropriate to celebrate the coming of something great. On Monday, Nov. 10, I restart my professional life as the Web Content Editor/Interactive Content Specialist for the Christian Children's Fund.
Check them out here, here and here.R.I.P Richmond.com; it was great while it lasted.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Yes, We Can ... Can't We?
Although I'm not a believer in being "awed" by the political endorsement of celebrities, I had to share this video.
I honestly cannot wait for election night. Either way you vote and either way the country turns, this is a monumental election; one that will surely change the course of America for good.
And while yes this video, and the Obama campaign itself is one of inspiration that America has not seen in a number of years, I have to go ahead and agree with this guy.
We're all human -- meaning most of us act on instinct, emotion and yes, fear. But I urge you not to let that get in the way of what you think is right for our country. Vote on facts and issues, not on traits that won't actually matter in the long run.
So America; can we vote for change? Can we build change? Can we decipher real change from empty promises? And most importantly, can we change ourselves?
Yes, we can. I just hope WE DO.
I honestly cannot wait for election night. Either way you vote and either way the country turns, this is a monumental election; one that will surely change the course of America for good.
And while yes this video, and the Obama campaign itself is one of inspiration that America has not seen in a number of years, I have to go ahead and agree with this guy.
We're all human -- meaning most of us act on instinct, emotion and yes, fear. But I urge you not to let that get in the way of what you think is right for our country. Vote on facts and issues, not on traits that won't actually matter in the long run.
So America; can we vote for change? Can we build change? Can we decipher real change from empty promises? And most importantly, can we change ourselves?
Yes, we can. I just hope WE DO.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Local Yokel
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama NOT for Mama
As if mother-daughter relationships weren't already complicated enough, MSNBC posts a story today highlighting the divided of the most close-but-often-contentious relationships: mothers and daughters...
Some highlights...
"For mothers and daughters, fights over the political often feel very personal, particularly in an election with a woman GOP vice presidential candidate and following a tight race where a female was a finalist for the Democratic nomination."
and
"Young voters favor Barack Obama over John McCain 59 percent to 38 percent, according to the latest Gallup data ... Among women overall, there's a big gap between the 54 percent who support Obama and the 39 percent who choose McCain."
and
"Faced with a daughter whose political views are opposite her own, a mom may feel like her kid is rejecting everything she worked so hard to teach ... And especially in a heated election like this one, politics can become a symbol of identity for some people."
It's not this news is all that interesting or new to me, it just furthers the point that change is hard to come by. Generational divides run thick no matter where you look, but as far as this election is concerned, it's not just race that's a major factor in people'e decisions.
It's gender.
First there was Hilary Clinton; now it's Sarah Palin. Both very different women standing for very different issues. But does that matter to some women when it comes time to vote? Are there women out there voting for the GOP simply becuase it means a woman will finally enter the White House.
I would argue, yes.
Are there voters out there simply voting for Obama because it will mean an African-American finally becomes president.
I would argue, yes.
So much for change.
Some highlights...
"For mothers and daughters, fights over the political often feel very personal, particularly in an election with a woman GOP vice presidential candidate and following a tight race where a female was a finalist for the Democratic nomination."
and
"Young voters favor Barack Obama over John McCain 59 percent to 38 percent, according to the latest Gallup data ... Among women overall, there's a big gap between the 54 percent who support Obama and the 39 percent who choose McCain."
and
"Faced with a daughter whose political views are opposite her own, a mom may feel like her kid is rejecting everything she worked so hard to teach ... And especially in a heated election like this one, politics can become a symbol of identity for some people."
It's not this news is all that interesting or new to me, it just furthers the point that change is hard to come by. Generational divides run thick no matter where you look, but as far as this election is concerned, it's not just race that's a major factor in people'e decisions.
It's gender.
First there was Hilary Clinton; now it's Sarah Palin. Both very different women standing for very different issues. But does that matter to some women when it comes time to vote? Are there women out there voting for the GOP simply becuase it means a woman will finally enter the White House.
I would argue, yes.
Are there voters out there simply voting for Obama because it will mean an African-American finally becomes president.
I would argue, yes.
So much for change.
A Shot of Motivation
That's what I should have been spending my money on this weekend instead of Woo Woos, undercurrents and tequila. Sorry J.S.
I admit it; I've been neglectful. I guess it's hard to want to write about politics when you're thrown into conversations about it day in and day out during the 9 to 5 work day.
But that's no excuse.
"Don't make excuses. Make things happen. Make changes. Then make history." -- Doug Hall.
Over the course of two weeks Richmond.com covered both the Palin and Obama rallies. Not that they were the best news stories to be found in our wading pool of local media here in Richmond, but it's at least worth taking a look at.
I've come to the conclusion that this race is insane. People are insane and the media has just gone crazy. Take a look at the RDC comment section; it's great that people have things to say ... but honestly, do people have tact or couth at all anymore?
I'm going to answer that question with a big, fat "NO."
Everyone talks about change; sure it's a great word; a great concept. But what about those same persons actions? Again, from Richmond.com's coverage of the Obama rally...
"Change is a promise we hear every four years. More than anyone else, Obama has made change the rallying cry of his campaign ... Hours after the rally two things happened that reminded me just how difficult it is to change anything, not to mention an entire country.
I received an email from a friend. He’d seen an Obama campaign sign that had been vandalized. Someone had altered the word “Change” by removing the ‘c’ and adding an ‘m’ to the end. The sign now read “hangem.” So much for change.
And then, I was driving on Belvidere at rush hour. I was first behind the light, and traffic was very heavy. The drivers opposite, turning across the lane in front of me, began to stack up in the intersection.
Instead of sitting on a green light and not proceeding until cars ahead of them had cleared the intersection, they piled in, one behind another until no one could move."
Change. It's admirable, a nice word, a great concept. But one man, white or black, isn't going to do it. It's going to take a nation of voters who not own believe in the word or in a man who promises that change, but who are willing to sacrifice and change themselves.
I admit it; I've been neglectful. I guess it's hard to want to write about politics when you're thrown into conversations about it day in and day out during the 9 to 5 work day.
But that's no excuse.
"Don't make excuses. Make things happen. Make changes. Then make history." -- Doug Hall.
Over the course of two weeks Richmond.com covered both the Palin and Obama rallies. Not that they were the best news stories to be found in our wading pool of local media here in Richmond, but it's at least worth taking a look at.
I've come to the conclusion that this race is insane. People are insane and the media has just gone crazy. Take a look at the RDC comment section; it's great that people have things to say ... but honestly, do people have tact or couth at all anymore?
I'm going to answer that question with a big, fat "NO."
Everyone talks about change; sure it's a great word; a great concept. But what about those same persons actions? Again, from Richmond.com's coverage of the Obama rally...
"Change is a promise we hear every four years. More than anyone else, Obama has made change the rallying cry of his campaign ... Hours after the rally two things happened that reminded me just how difficult it is to change anything, not to mention an entire country.
I received an email from a friend. He’d seen an Obama campaign sign that had been vandalized. Someone had altered the word “Change” by removing the ‘c’ and adding an ‘m’ to the end. The sign now read “hangem.” So much for change.
And then, I was driving on Belvidere at rush hour. I was first behind the light, and traffic was very heavy. The drivers opposite, turning across the lane in front of me, began to stack up in the intersection.
Instead of sitting on a green light and not proceeding until cars ahead of them had cleared the intersection, they piled in, one behind another until no one could move."
Change. It's admirable, a nice word, a great concept. But one man, white or black, isn't going to do it. It's going to take a nation of voters who not own believe in the word or in a man who promises that change, but who are willing to sacrifice and change themselves.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
"Inspire with Deeds"
OK, so I shouldn't have said that before..."afraid to say it."
Honestly, I'm happy to see it. Sarah Palin is the first speaker at the RNC that I've actually seen bring any real emotion to the the stage and to the people attending this convention.
If I may contradict myself in a previous post, about coming this far, seeing Sarah Palin up speak on the political stage, as something other than a First Lady, is absolutely and wonderfully empowering for women.
She was smart and humorous, sarcastically insulting without being rash and strong without being prideful.
She had a strong presentation that seemed to be well received by all; meaning this could be the beginning of an enthusiastic and very active, new Republican Party. With the (arguably purposeful) distance between President George Bush and Republican candidate John McCain, Sarah Palin has now set the tone for "change" within the Republican Party.
Now...don't get me wrong, I still have problem with the fact that McCain has only met his VP running mate once.
Sure, he's followed her career, which includes PLENTY of EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE (4:55 in the clip - hilarious). But where's the justification? When Sarah Palin said:
"In politics, there are some candidates who use "change" to promote their careers; there are others, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change ... for a season, a candidate can inspire with words. For a lifetime, McCain has inspired with his deeds."
I hope to see Palin bring more of her "deeds" to the table -- more of her qualifications. As a member of the media, I reject the personal attacks on Palin. It is my believe, as also stated in a previous post, that we should be able to debate the issues without "challenging each other's character and patriotism."
Overall -- great speech for Sarah Palin -- impressive, inspiring and powerful. It may just be what the Republican Party needs. Her speech lacked a little in substance -- but think about it. Had she started ranting on about foreign policy and other issues she has yet to deal with, there's obviously room for error and criticism.
However, that doesn't mean that now isn't the time to start forming ideas, plans and solutions.
Tomorrow night, when John McCain comes forward to speak, I believe that while his story is familiar to everyone, his ideas and his personality may not be. He needs to connect with the American people on a personal and inspirationally-honest level.
Honestly, I'm happy to see it. Sarah Palin is the first speaker at the RNC that I've actually seen bring any real emotion to the the stage and to the people attending this convention.
If I may contradict myself in a previous post, about coming this far, seeing Sarah Palin up speak on the political stage, as something other than a First Lady, is absolutely and wonderfully empowering for women.
She was smart and humorous, sarcastically insulting without being rash and strong without being prideful.
She had a strong presentation that seemed to be well received by all; meaning this could be the beginning of an enthusiastic and very active, new Republican Party. With the (arguably purposeful) distance between President George Bush and Republican candidate John McCain, Sarah Palin has now set the tone for "change" within the Republican Party.
Now...don't get me wrong, I still have problem with the fact that McCain has only met his VP running mate once.
Sure, he's followed her career, which includes PLENTY of EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE (4:55 in the clip - hilarious). But where's the justification? When Sarah Palin said:
"In politics, there are some candidates who use "change" to promote their careers; there are others, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change ... for a season, a candidate can inspire with words. For a lifetime, McCain has inspired with his deeds."
I hope to see Palin bring more of her "deeds" to the table -- more of her qualifications. As a member of the media, I reject the personal attacks on Palin. It is my believe, as also stated in a previous post, that we should be able to debate the issues without "challenging each other's character and patriotism."
Overall -- great speech for Sarah Palin -- impressive, inspiring and powerful. It may just be what the Republican Party needs. Her speech lacked a little in substance -- but think about it. Had she started ranting on about foreign policy and other issues she has yet to deal with, there's obviously room for error and criticism.
However, that doesn't mean that now isn't the time to start forming ideas, plans and solutions.
Tomorrow night, when John McCain comes forward to speak, I believe that while his story is familiar to everyone, his ideas and his personality may not be. He needs to connect with the American people on a personal and inspirationally-honest level.
A regular comedian
I'm almost afraid to say it...but Sarah Palin is funny. And a great public speaker.
Who'da thunk it?
More later.
Who'da thunk it?
More later.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
"This is the UNITED STATES of America"
Life got in the way this past weekend, meaning Obama's speech is in the past.
No worries - I'll recap my opinion here. Lotta talk, little substance.
Hasn't that been the argument throughout his entire campaign? To the best of my knowledge, it's been said that Obama has thrown the word "change" around enough to make people crazy - but that he's never really capitalized on what exactly that "change" will be.
I would never argue that Obama is not a great speaker - he has a way with words, a way to reach people on an emotional level (far better than Bush was ever able). But once you get past the fluff, the eloquent language and the snappy phrases, that's all that you're left with.
And if the majority of Americans are anything like the Americans I know in our "big little" town of Richmond, Virginia, to us -- talk, talk, talk is cheap, cheap cheap.
When the choice came for Obama to begin with with what he plans to actually DO in order to implement change or criticizing and bashing his right wing opponent, he chose the latter. Which only says to me, that Obama is well prepped in the art of persuasive speech.
I have one major issue, or perhaps a better word would be question, with Obama's speech and one huge compliment -- which is also the reason I decided to begin this blog.
Here's where it gets a little touchy. I understand that yes, this a historical election, but it's an historical election no matter which way you vote (especially with the addition of McCain's running mate, Sarah Phalin). And yes, it's quite touching to some that Obama, the first African-American man to have his name on the ballot for President, addressed the DNC on the same day that 45 years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a Dream" speech.
But my question is -- if Obama and his supporters are going to talk about how far we have come as a country, to have a black man on the Presidential ballot, and then compare his running to that of a time when "little black boys and little black girls" were physically unable to "join hands with "little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brother" ... how is it that we've come "that far."
I found this comparison contradictory and somewhat elitist. Making the political race about "race" is something the Obama campaign has harped on, and in order to "come this far" that card needs to be removed from the deck. If not, we obviously haven't come as far as he/she/we would like to believe.
Side note: to answer your question, Democracy Dude, the fact that "a minority" is on the ballot should be irrelevant. If we are not a neither a "Red America or a Blue America" should it matter that the men we're choosing between to lead our US of A be black, white, purple or green?
I think not.
An important point Obama made, is something that I look forward to witnessing first hand in the days ahead. Obama states, "One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."
Again, former Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman said it again tonight "when it comes time to vote, vote for the candidate who is best for this country, not for the party that you belong to."
I call for an abandonment of party loyalties for all Americans. Politics is talk, and talk is cheap. We have to look for action -- past and potential -- when choosing between the two. And for the record, I honestly don't know who I will vote for come election day. My favoritism has swayed more during this election than ever before. And perhaps, as I said before, it's because I'm investing more time and energy to finding out the facts, the opinions and more on the background of these candidates and their VP running mates as I can.
Why I choose to write these late at night is beyond me. Tomorrow -- a look at the beginning of the RNC.
No worries - I'll recap my opinion here. Lotta talk, little substance.
Hasn't that been the argument throughout his entire campaign? To the best of my knowledge, it's been said that Obama has thrown the word "change" around enough to make people crazy - but that he's never really capitalized on what exactly that "change" will be.
I would never argue that Obama is not a great speaker - he has a way with words, a way to reach people on an emotional level (far better than Bush was ever able). But once you get past the fluff, the eloquent language and the snappy phrases, that's all that you're left with.
And if the majority of Americans are anything like the Americans I know in our "big little" town of Richmond, Virginia, to us -- talk, talk, talk is cheap, cheap cheap.
When the choice came for Obama to begin with with what he plans to actually DO in order to implement change or criticizing and bashing his right wing opponent, he chose the latter. Which only says to me, that Obama is well prepped in the art of persuasive speech.
I have one major issue, or perhaps a better word would be question, with Obama's speech and one huge compliment -- which is also the reason I decided to begin this blog.
Here's where it gets a little touchy. I understand that yes, this a historical election, but it's an historical election no matter which way you vote (especially with the addition of McCain's running mate, Sarah Phalin). And yes, it's quite touching to some that Obama, the first African-American man to have his name on the ballot for President, addressed the DNC on the same day that 45 years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a Dream" speech.
But my question is -- if Obama and his supporters are going to talk about how far we have come as a country, to have a black man on the Presidential ballot, and then compare his running to that of a time when "little black boys and little black girls" were physically unable to "join hands with "little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brother" ... how is it that we've come "that far."
I found this comparison contradictory and somewhat elitist. Making the political race about "race" is something the Obama campaign has harped on, and in order to "come this far" that card needs to be removed from the deck. If not, we obviously haven't come as far as he/she/we would like to believe.
Side note: to answer your question, Democracy Dude, the fact that "a minority" is on the ballot should be irrelevant. If we are not a neither a "Red America or a Blue America" should it matter that the men we're choosing between to lead our US of A be black, white, purple or green?
I think not.
An important point Obama made, is something that I look forward to witnessing first hand in the days ahead. Obama states, "One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."
Again, former Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman said it again tonight "when it comes time to vote, vote for the candidate who is best for this country, not for the party that you belong to."
I call for an abandonment of party loyalties for all Americans. Politics is talk, and talk is cheap. We have to look for action -- past and potential -- when choosing between the two. And for the record, I honestly don't know who I will vote for come election day. My favoritism has swayed more during this election than ever before. And perhaps, as I said before, it's because I'm investing more time and energy to finding out the facts, the opinions and more on the background of these candidates and their VP running mates as I can.
Why I choose to write these late at night is beyond me. Tomorrow -- a look at the beginning of the RNC.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Activate Your Politico
So, let's be honest, I've never really been one for politics.
In high school, I chose to take government because of the two evils (history or government) studying history for an entire semester would have been like stabbing myself in the eye with a hot poker every day of my life.
In college, I earned a B in my government class. And even then I think (OK, let's be honest - I know) I only excelled because my professor was completely ignorant of the fact that students earn grades; they are not given by professors. So I had to prove her wrong.
I still curse her to this day.
But if you were to ask me to explain my lack of political interest, opinion and/or commentary -- there are two things I could say to you.
The first -- blame it on the job. I'm a journalist (and damn proud of it). And the cardinal rule of Journalism 101? Remain objective, meaning my public affiliation with either political party could mean a discredit to my journalistic reputation.
But as any human being knows -- the term objective is subjective in itself; so in my opinion, I lose out on that argument.
The second -- ignorance. As much as it pains me to say it, I've held strong to the saying that "ignorance is bliss" and applied to my view of politics. But that was until I made a promise to myself to pay attention to the Democratic National Convention over the last few days.
I know that the blogosphere will be jam-packed with political commentators, much more experienced, in tune and linguistically capable than myself. But let's just say (as part of my journalistic duties) I've decided to give it a shot.
I still refuse to identify myself with either party, and I won't label myself as an independent. I actually believe it's that sort of "labeling" that's gotten us all confused and riled up in the first place.
But as someone new to the "political arena" if you will, I'll offer my opinion, ask questions and hopefully gain a little knowledge.
I've paid the most attention to the convention over the past two nights, during which Joe Biden and Barack Obama gave their speeches. They've raised questions, brought forth their issues and without doubt inspired millions.
However, it's late -- at least for this 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. working girl. I've just watched Obama's speech for the second time tonight, and as the convention came to a close with the score "Titan's Spirit" (I think I started to choke up at 3:20 on the track) playing as streamers flew and fireworks lit up the sky...I couldn't help but be inspired.
Maybe it's because music has a way of drawing out my emotions, or maybe it's because I've finally realized that, as Obama put it, "all across America, something is stirring."
But I aspire to be a part of it.
In high school, I chose to take government because of the two evils (history or government) studying history for an entire semester would have been like stabbing myself in the eye with a hot poker every day of my life.
In college, I earned a B in my government class. And even then I think (OK, let's be honest - I know) I only excelled because my professor was completely ignorant of the fact that students earn grades; they are not given by professors. So I had to prove her wrong.
I still curse her to this day.
But if you were to ask me to explain my lack of political interest, opinion and/or commentary -- there are two things I could say to you.
The first -- blame it on the job. I'm a journalist (and damn proud of it). And the cardinal rule of Journalism 101? Remain objective, meaning my public affiliation with either political party could mean a discredit to my journalistic reputation.
But as any human being knows -- the term objective is subjective in itself; so in my opinion, I lose out on that argument.
The second -- ignorance. As much as it pains me to say it, I've held strong to the saying that "ignorance is bliss" and applied to my view of politics. But that was until I made a promise to myself to pay attention to the Democratic National Convention over the last few days.
I know that the blogosphere will be jam-packed with political commentators, much more experienced, in tune and linguistically capable than myself. But let's just say (as part of my journalistic duties) I've decided to give it a shot.
I still refuse to identify myself with either party, and I won't label myself as an independent. I actually believe it's that sort of "labeling" that's gotten us all confused and riled up in the first place.
But as someone new to the "political arena" if you will, I'll offer my opinion, ask questions and hopefully gain a little knowledge.
I've paid the most attention to the convention over the past two nights, during which Joe Biden and Barack Obama gave their speeches. They've raised questions, brought forth their issues and without doubt inspired millions.
However, it's late -- at least for this 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. working girl. I've just watched Obama's speech for the second time tonight, and as the convention came to a close with the score "Titan's Spirit" (I think I started to choke up at 3:20 on the track) playing as streamers flew and fireworks lit up the sky...I couldn't help but be inspired.
Maybe it's because music has a way of drawing out my emotions, or maybe it's because I've finally realized that, as Obama put it, "all across America, something is stirring."
But I aspire to be a part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
