PowerMedia

******************************
******************************
Personal Promotion
Polls
Libel/Slander
Laws and Campaigns
Debates
Demographics

Please submit a short posting addressing the red questions.


Advertising/promotion on a personal level:

Technology has made anyone capable of mass media promotion. Joe Trippi was the manager for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and made a decision to use the web as a major component. He has, arguably, revolutionized modern politics in the same fashion as Henry Ford and the introduction of the assembley line to automobile manufacture. See this link for details.

- First one need a message (see your rhetorical studies for refining your message)

- Posting a message to a web site, specifically in the form of a BLOG, can only be effective if people read it. Getting read in the Virtual World follows similar to the Actual World, networking. Posting links to other sites, can be helpful, and so can RSS feeds. WWW.Blogger.com is an excellent free resource for hosting a site.


- Once a weBLOG has been created, it can be partially financed by adding ads, like www.google.adsense.com.

- What media source doesn’t have a store? We even have one! Creating merchandise is a superb way to promote your site. Consumers, not just readers interested in your thoughts, may be looking for unique T-shirts or bumper stickers, and could find your site from a Google search, and could also make some money. www.cafepress.com has created a ground breaking merchandising option for internet users. All the user needs to do is upload artwork to their servers, select “blank” merchandise the artwork will appear on, add descriptions, and set a profit level. Cafepress handles all shipping and payment details, issues any necessary tax documents, and supports any customer service problems. This frees the user from the typical start up costs that merchandising must follow. There is no need for buying or storing merchandise, all orders are printed only when paid for, and shipping and payment details is totally out of the users hands.


- Paypal is an internet payment service. It charges a small fee for all transactions and as part of their agreement, will guarantee reliable and secure payments.

- Another development, www.meetup.com allows people interested in particular activities to find each other. This is another free service. The significant stage here is merging the Actual and Virtual worlds. For example, my attempt at one!

How can you use these options in future endeavors?

POLLS

Advice from the GadFlyer:
”As long as you ask yourself a couple of simple questions, you can figure out whether to believe what you're being told:
 What's the margin of error? Is the difference between one answer and the other less than twice as big? Then we just can't say who's ahead.

 Is there a trend within one organization's numbers? This is important because each pollster will ask similar questions in slightly different ways (for instance, some push people not to answer "don't know," forcing them to make a choice, while others don't), which can yield slightly different results. But if, say, Gallup shows a consistent decline day after day for an extended period in Kerry's numbers, we can be sure it's real, because we know they ask exactly the same question, using the same sampling techniques, every time they do a poll.

 Is a reporter trying to tell me that a one-day shift in a poll's numbers is meaningful, and s/he knows why it happened? Then don't believe a word of it.”

A good poll:
• locates people who fairly represent the population the larger group) we're interested in;
• asks them fair, comprehensible and useful questions;
• calculates results fairly, without reaching beyond the data; and
• is reported so people can understand where it does and does not apply.

Polls, what they are, what they count, reliability, methodology

Margin of error explained

Why are most polls based on one thousand people?

Laws and Advertising

McCain-Feingold
The First Amendment is not a "loophole."
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the First Amendment protects the right of groups of citizens, including nonprofit corporations, to freely communicate with the public regarding the actions and positions of persons who hold or seek federal office, without being subjected to limits on how much they can spend on such commentary or other restrictions such as those proposed in the McCain-Feingold bill. The legal term of art for such commentary on candidates' positions is "issue advocacy."
The Supreme Court's "express advocacy" test is clear and objective -- a "bright line" that cannot be removed or moved by an act of Congress, because it is rooted in the First Amendment itself, which prohibits Congress from passing any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The definition is based on the actual words used in a communication -- not on some bureaucrat's post-hoc judgment about the "motivation" or "purpose" or "effect" of the communication.
The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that a political communication should be evaluated on the basis of the judgment of some third party (such as the Federal Election Commission) regarding the motivation or intent of the communication, or on the basis of somebody's judgment about how the message was "understood" by those who received it -- the approach incorporated in the new McCain-Feingold bill.
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/speechrestrict799.htm

Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.
1st amendment

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND LIBEL
U.S. Supreme Court , NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
If the government official should be immune from libel actions so that his ardor to serve the public will not be dampened and "fearless, vigorous, and effective administration of policies of government" not be inhibited, Barr v. Matteo, supra, at 571, then the citizen and the press should likewise be immune from libel actions for their criticism of official conduct. Their ardor as citizens will thus not be dampened and they will be free "to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important." 5 If liability can attach to political criticism because it damages the reputation of a public official as a public official, then no critical citizen can safely utter anything but faint praise about the government or its officials. The vigorous criticism by press and citizen of the conduct of the government of the day by the officials of the day will soon yield to silence if officials in control of government agencies, instead of answering criticisms, can resort to friendly juries to forestall criticism of their official conduct. 6
The conclusion that the Constitution affords the citizen and the press an absolute privilege for criticism of official conduct does not leave the public official without defenses against unsubstantiated opinions or deliberate misstatements. "Under our system of government, counterargument and education are the weapons available to expose these matters, not abridgment . . . of free speech . . . ." Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 389 . The public [376 U.S. 254, 305] official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication. In any event, despite the possibility that some excesses and abuses may go unremedied, we must recognize that "the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, [certain] liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 . As Mr. Justice Brandeis correctly observed, "sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants." 7
For these reasons, I strongly believe that the Constitution accords citizens and press an unconditional freedom to criticize official conduct. It necessarily follows that in a case such as this, where all agree that the allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct, the judgments for libel cannot constitutionally be sustained. "

Do corporations have Freedom of Expression?


The Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)
From their web site:
“Our Mission: The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.”

PBS NOW television show:
FARAH: President Jimmy Carter at the time refused to debate Anderson because he thought Anderson would take more votes away from him. So the League was confronted with a dilemma. Does it capitulate to the President of the United States? Or does it invite an Independent candidate the American people want to see. Well, the League had guts and it went forward and it invited Anderson to participate in a 1980 Presidential debate even though President Carter refused to show up in front of 50 million viewers.
MOYERS: In 1984, four years later, the League had to stand up once again to intimidation from the major party candidates. Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale kept vetoing every journalist the League proposed as a questioner.
FARAH: The campaigns got together and tried to get rid of all the difficult questions. What did the League do? Well, instead of silently accepting this reality it held a press conference in Washington. And it lambasted the candidates for, quote, "totally abusing the process."
MOYERS: Moderator Barbara Walters was left without a full panel of journalists.
WALTERS: The candidates were given a list of almost 100 qualified journalists from all the media and could agree on only these three fine journalists. As moderator and on behalf of my fellow journalists, I very much regret as does the League of Women Voters, that this situation has occurred.
MOYERS: So there came this moment when these uppity women at the League of Women Voters said to the Presidential candidates, "You can't write the rules." And the two parties then did what?
FARAH: The parties were sick and tired of a women's organization telling their boys who they had to participate with, in what format, with whom, and what questions would have to be asked.
MOYERS: So the two parties got together.
FARAH: Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush negotiated the first Memoranda of Understanding in 1988. So they hand it to the League.
The League says, "What is this? We don't do this. We don't put our respected name and trusted name onto a secret document you've negotiated. We refuse to implement this."
NEUMAN: The League of Women Voters is announcing today that we have no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. Under these circumstances, the League is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates.
FARAH: It's precisely because the League of Women Voters was willing to fight on behalf of the public interest and refused to comply with the secret demands of the Republican and Democratic nominees, that the parties got together and created their own compliant commission.
MOYERS: And that's how the Commission on Presidential Debates came into being. It has supervised every presidential debate since 1988.

What two candidates made this agreement in 1988? Who arranges the debates? Who can participate? How did they get this authority and how long have they had it?

The Memo of Understanding between Kerry and Bush
This is a 32 page memo that detailed all aspects of the current debates. Does this ensure an open exchange of ideas? How does this memo compare with the conclusion of Sullivan vs New York Times (1964) Supreme Court decision?

"The vigorous criticism by press and citizen of the conduct of the government of the day by the officials of the day will soon yield to silence if officials in control of government agencies, instead of answering criticisms, can resort to friendly juries to forestall criticism of their official conduct."

(excerpt concerning audience questions, bold face is mine)

(e) Prior to the start of the debate, audience members
will be asked to submit their questions in writing to
the moderator. No third party, including both the
Commission and the campaigns, shall be permitted to
see the questions. The moderator shall approve and
select all questions to be posed by the audience
members to the candidates. The moderator shall ensure
that the audience members pose to the candidates an
equal number of questions on foreign policy and
homeland security on the one hand and economic and
domestic policy on the other. The moderator will
further review the questions and eliminate any
questions that the moderator deems inappropriate. At
least seven (7) days before the October 8 debate the
moderator shall develop, and describe to the
campaigns, a method for selecting questions at random
while assuring that questions are reasonably well
balanced in terms of addressing a wide range of issues
of major public interest facing the United States and
the world. Each question selected will be asked by the
audience member submitting that question. If any
audience member poses a question or makes a statement
that is in any material way different than the
question that the audience member earlier submitted to
the moderator for review, the moderator will cut-off
the questioner and advise the audience that such nonreviewed
questions are not permitted. Moreover, the
Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the
microphone of any such audience member that attempts
to pose any question or statement different than that
previously posed to the moderator for review.


Should Third Parties, other than Democrat or Republican, be allowed to participate?

Third party candidates have been responsible for the following:
- the abolition of slavery
- women's suffrage
- public power (electricity)
- public education
- social security
- unemployment compensation
- the direct election of senators
- the formation of labor unions

Are we getting an accurate idea from the Mass Media of what our full range of options are for presidential candidates?

Demographics

Definition
Demography is the study of human population dynamics. It encompasses the study of the size, structure and distribution of populations, and how populations change over time due to births, deaths, migration and ageing. Demographic analysis can relate to whole societies or to groups defined by criteria such as education, nationality, religion and ethnicity.

This site, Understanding USA has a good overview of basic statistical facts regarding the American people as a whole.

Go to this link and see what the largest employment category is. How is this fact being used in the current campaign?

******************************
******************************