His Haircut and Her Laugh

My thoughts on the panel “His Haircut and Her Laugh” at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, November 27, 2007. Various local newsprint media employees and journalism academics made up the panel of four (Susan Albright, Gary Hill, Alina Oxendine & Roger Bouen) and a moderator (David Hudson). In general, the panel discussed the upcoming elections and the role of traditional media outlets (largely newspapers) versus new media such as blogs and other internet sources. Rather than give a straight and possibly boring summary of the proceedings, I want to use this space to respond to the points made that I found most intriguing.
The panel skipped opening statements in favor of making more time for questions at the end of the hour. One of the first points of discussion was whether newspaper editorial pages should endorse specific candidates. The panelist that brought forward this argument believed that the online world has caused or rather required newspaper genres to change greatly in order to compete with online new sources. I believe that what was meant by this is that editorial pages no longer have the luxury of endorsing specific candidates in order to draw in readers, because they cannot run the risk of losing readers that disagree and can find information with which they agree more easily online. To be honest, I do not myself read the newspaper. I read editorial articles that are recommended to me by friends and family, usually because they are funny or stupid. So I am really not sure what editorial sections “used” to be like pre internet intrusion, but I imagine that I would be more likely to delve into an editorial section that supported my candidate if I were looking to read more about said candidate. In essence, like most people out there, I do practice selective exposure when I choose my news sources. The internet makes selective exposure easy and accessible. By offering no specific candidate endorsement newspapers invite audiences of all political ilk to readership, which makes dollars and cents. However, personally, I like my editorial writers to have personal opinions. Is that not the point?
A fair bit later into the arguments, one of the panelists brought up the point that many news sources are no longer interested in covering the candidates by addressing their stance on the issues. Since “celebrity” sells, more media sources focus on subjects like candidates style, likes and dislikes, personal lives, possible scandals, etc. One example put forth about this occurrence was the recent front page articles announcing that Oprah was supporting Obama on the campaign trail. I understand that a lot of American society is interested in the lives of celebrities. I realize that stories about Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan sell a lot of magazines. However, I do not think that the press is doing anyone a favor by treating political figures like celebrities. Politicians help the country run. Knowing about which shoe designer they like or what color they look best in is irrelevant and obstructs progress. I do not want: to want vote for Obama because Oprah supports him. I do not want: to want to not vote for Giuliani because he has a scandalous marital history. I want: to know where the candidates stand on the issues, or at the very least where they say they stand on the issues—at any given moment in time.
The panelist also brought up another point about how the new media has changed election coverage: the recent CNN democratic You Tube debate. One panelist mentioned the fact that a snowman asked the questions during the debate and how that was potentially insulting to candidates and one candidate did indeed refuse to participate in the debate on those grounds. I have not seen the debate. Maybe the snowman was cute and festive. Maybe not. Just the idea that a snowman was deemed a necessary tool to draw in an audience seems overkill to me. To me, You Tube is already a user-friendly format without the snowman. The audience does not even need to make time to watch the debate when it originally airs. The audience will have to ability to scroll right past certain questions when watching it later on You Tube. To me, the snowman is the death knell of audiences that tune into debates because they want to be informed on the issues. I can nearly imagine the conversations that took place the day after the debate originally aired, “Dude, did you see the You Tube debate last night? A snowman asked the questions!” Said dude might look the debate up later get hooked by the snowman and later find him or herself actually listening to the issues being discussed. I see the appeal/idea behind the snowman concept. I just cannot believe that I actually live in a country where it is necessary to have a snowman asking questions in order to gain an audience.
Those are my general impressions of the panel. It was interesting for me, a staunch TV viewer when it comes to election coverage, to think about the ways in which print and the internet are competing for audiences.