State of the Union: Straight Up

According to the White House blog, I was one of almost 1.3 million people who watched President Obama speak to our nation’s leaders and the American people in his State of the Union address on Jan. 27. Despite the atypical length of the speech – approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes – watching it firsthand made me feel empowered and informed as a citizen.

Since I received the information directly from President Obama, the primary source, I could interpret the speech from my perspective. Reporters and bloggers sift through the speech and select what they believe are key parts. However, what may be the most important issue to one person may not be as important to another.

For example, The Daily Tar Heel reported that Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt tweeted about Obama’s goal to eliminate the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. At the same time, Laura Rozen, a blogger for POLITICO, focused on the president's little emphasis on foreign policy.

Although specific issues, such as the proposed freeze on non-defense spending, were consistently topics of controversy among analysts and government officials, their perspectives on the issue were quite different. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who delivered the official Republican response to the address, said that the freeze will not be enough to alleviate economic hardships – that instead government needs to be limited further. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, called the freeze a “dumb policy idea.”

In addition, analysts and bloggers often focus on the tone and delivery of the speech more than the content. Michael Crowley, a blogger for The New Republic, wrote that Obama gave a “strong, fluid speech” with “some memorable, lighthearted moments.” On the converse, Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst refererenced in a CNN article, noted that the speech was “underwhelming” and lacked middle ground.

Many of the specifics of the speech, such as the timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and the executive order to create a Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, were omitted from articles and blogs more focused on the themes of the speech or what Obama was missing. Even though some of the specific promises may seem challenging or unrealistic to critics (e.g. doubling the nation's exports in the next five years), Americans should still be aware that these proposals are being considered.

Witnessing the atmosphere of the chamber both added and detracted from the speech’s impact. Although the applause delayed the speech, it gave some indication of how much support each issue has among members of Congress. For example, there was less applause for the spending freeze than for other issues, such as clean energy and education reform.

The reactions of specific individuals and groups to Obama’s remarks were intriguing. The president’s critique of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was defied by Justice Alito. Also, the Joint Chiefs of Staff met Obama’s proposal to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with stoicism.

At the same time, the expressions of Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi frequently detracted from the speech, attracting my attention toward them and away from the president. Unlike the other individuals who were temporarily caught on camera, Biden and Pelosi were conscious of their presence onscreen. As a result, their response to Obama’s comments were contrived. At best, Biden’s constant nodding and Pelosi’s disappearing and reemerging smile were entertaining.

I also witnessed the occasional tension in the chamber during the speech and Obama’s forced use of sarcasm. When he did not receive a positive response to the spending freeze proposal, Obama noted that the freeze would not go into effect until next year when employment conditions have improved. He then awkwardly joked, "That's how budgeting works." He also called out critics of global warming, stating "I know there are those that disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence" for climate change. Finally, he continually referred back to the faults of the Bush administration, remarking that the deficit and war existed before he "walked in the door." After noting all the problems he inherited, he said that he was "just stating the facts." These moments showed Obama's struggle to gain support from both the Republicans as well as his own party.

Although the speech itself is my first choice as a source for information about the State of the Union, newspaper articles and blogs do have several benefits and are great supplements to the address. Reporters compile information about relevant current events and put the speech in political context. The "State of the Union: Reactions, Analysis of Obama's 2010 Address" on The Huffington Post's Web site provides multiple comments from political experts who look at Obama's speech through the lense of his actions over the past year.

Political analysts also have a more comprehensive idea of what to expect. An article on FOXNews.com, "Obama to Push Jobs, Education Spending in State of the Union Address," outlined Obama's goals, including an increase in educational spending, an increase in jobs and a persistent push for healthcare reform.

Also, reporters can compare the speech to speeches by past presidents in comparable political situations. The News and Observer's article, "Obama channels Ronald Reagan: 'Stay the course,'" likens Obama's address to Ronald Reagan's speech in 1982, which also encouraged citizens to have faith in his policies despite hard times. (The president may have noticed this similarity -- he said that he was embracing the vision of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy when he discussed the threat of nuclear weapons.)

Just as the intervening applause during the speech was grating at times, the personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of bloggers can get in the way of relevant information about the speech. However, blogs present a wide variety of perspectives from Michelle Malkin to the Daily Kos.

The comments on blogs allow for political debate that can increase readers' knowledge and present ideas that one may not have considered. Talking Points Memo blogger John Marshall invited comments from readers an hour before the speech, asking his audience to "bring it on" with their expectations. The Washington Post editor Robert G. Kaiser asked for questions and comments from audience members about his State of the Union: Analysis and responded to their posts, creating a political discussion.

Blogs and newspaper articles add to readers' understanding of the State of the Union, but they are no substitute for the real deal. So next January, grab the remote -- or your laptop (YouTube, anyone?) -- and tune in.

Political blogs in North Carolina

An increasing number of North Carolina voters are turning to blogs for political news. The influence of blogs, including news and political opinion blogs, continues to grow as their readership rises. This week my Citizens and Media class is exploring two North Carolina blogs on opposite ends of the political spectrum – Blue NC and Civitasreview. I was curious to find out more about the credibility of each blog. Does their bias distort the information on their site or are the blogs trustworthy sources of news?

One of the first things I noticed about Blue NC – the left-leaning blog – were the entries posted by government officials and candidates for office. Phillip Gilfus announced that he is running for a seat on the Cumberland County Board of Commission. Elaine Marshall, the North Carolina Secretary of State and candidate for U.S. Senate, posted an argument for financial reform. While Gilfus talked in a more conversational tone than Marshall (he even went as far as to say “ladies and gents”), both made their posts personal, as if they were speaking directly to readers. This makes them more relatable, like they genuinely care about the concerns of voters And as seen through recently-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown's campaign ads, such as his "Hey Dad" campaign ad, relatability is a valuable quality in an election.

Kenneth Lewis, a candidate for U.S. Senate, posted a statement about a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign contributions. By posting the press release, he eliminated the middleman of the press. Readers can use their own judgment to interpret his statement in its entirety – a statement that has great emotional impact with its use of heated phrases like “dangerous ruling” and "arrogant display of judicial activism.”

In these three cases, the blog provides political leaders with the opportunity to connect with voters. This transparency establishes a sense of trust between candidates and supporters. The blog may help them mobilize more politically active citizens to support their campaign. While this is beneficial for the candidates, this makes the site a form of propaganda, and readers should keep that in mind when they use it to find out information.

There were also several posts critiquing government action and soliciting support for legislation. While they were opinionated, the posts were informative, often containing quotes from credible sources and links to sites with more data and background. Economic envelopment was almost entirely composed of links, giving readers access to a large pool of information.

Two additional posts called for collective action by readers:

Facing the barrage asked readers to become more astute observers of campaign ads in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

NC Congressional Delegation: Missing in action? requested that readers contact their legislators to support the SOS Bill. (On a side note: It's ironic that the blogger jokingly offers to buy a beer for readers who successfully solicit support from legislators. In class last Thursday, we discussed how politicians would reward voters with rum punch on election day during the early years of American government. This blogger may not be an esteemed gentleman in the House of Burgesses, but he is suggesting the same type of compensation for political activity. I guess history really does repeat itself.)

Civitasreview – the right-leaning blog – included several posts that exposed government corruption. Many of these posts, including one that was titled Peeling Away the Left's Lies (not exactly subtle), used inflammatory language. Although the language was emotional, the posts were still informative because, like Blue NC, they frequently contained links to primary sources and objective news articles. The posts themselves are accusatory at times, but they still serve an important function once solely fulfilled by traditional media sources: they hold leaders accountable for their actions. The blog empowers everyday citizens to call out officials for wrongdoing.

In UN Having to Admit More (and more) Mistakes, the blogger discusses the ClimateGate scandal. The use of the phrase “anti-human, climate-change advocates” in the first sentence seems extreme, but it did catch my eye. Once the post grabbed my attention with this opening sentence, I read further, learning from the Times Online excerpt that a 2007 report on Himalayan glaciers was misrepresented. Animated language like the phrase above may be over the top. Yet, it attracts people who, ideally, will then read on for more information.

The accusations made in the post about the corruption of the ABC boards in Wilmington and Charlotte were less provocative. The post relied heavily on monetary values to prove that board members are acting in self-interest. It also included a link to a report documenting the need for changes. The data makes the post extremely informative even with its cynical tone.

In Citizens and Media class last week, I proposed that traditional forms of journalism were necessary to report local politics. Beat reporters who follow specific politicians and attend town meetings are essential to communicating information about local political activity – or so I thought.

A post on Civitasreview, Early Childhood Education and Care Consolidation, shattered this point of view. It included the three essential things covered during a meeting of the joint legislative task force – a spreadsheet documenting 2009-2010 investments, a key speaker’s presentation and an organizational chart explaining the sources and flow of funding. The blog post was actually more useful than a print newspaper article about the meeting because it included links to these three items.

Both blogs provide their audiences with information and access to several reliable sources. The conversational and controversial writing style of the posts makes them more entertaining than traditional objective news articles. However, the main purpose of the blogs is the same as traditional sources of political news – to inform readers so that they can make rational decisions and influence government.

If a person only reads one of these blogs, he or she will have a one-sided perspective on current events. Still, a one-sided perspective is better than nothing. These citizens are halfway there to becoming the ideal “rational, informed citizen.” And as enthusiasm for political engagement declines in the United States, it’s a good start. Perhaps blogs, with their casual, approachable format, are the best response to political apathy among Americans, especially the younger age group.

News in the Queen City

Hey! I'm a freshman at UNC-Chapel Hill double majoring in journalism and political science. I was born and raised in Charlotte, North Carolina. Even though I spent a large amount of my time growing up in suburbia, I'm definitely a "city kid." I absolutely love the action and excitement of places with numerous people and events packed into a single location. Something about the atmosphere of uptown Charlotte at its peak hours (while it doesn't exactly compare to New York City) gives me a rush of adrenaline.

I was also born and raised in a family of die-hard Tarheel fans so my decision to attend Carolina was met with great enthusiasm by my relatives. In fact, I think I would have been disowned by my family if I hadn't chosen UNC (my uncle hummed the alma mater every moment he was around me for months, no joke). However, when it came down to final decision time, I was truly drawn to Carolina by the journalism program and the great college atmosphere.

I have enjoyed writing my entire life -- creative writing was my first passion, but throughout high school, my interest in journalistic writing as well as my fascination by politics increased. I became an avid reader of Newsweek and Time and began frequently watching the news. In the evenings, while I was working out at the Y, I watched two adjacent televisions showing FOX and CNN respectively. With the reputations of the networks as biased news sources, I was intrigued to see how they covered the same stories. I never discovered any drastic differences (except perhaps between the talk shows), but it was still quite the experiment. My final news source was somewhat of an accident. Although I wasn't thrilled about it at first, I spent many car rides with my parents listening to NPR. As a kid, I begged to listen to music instead -- especially when my incredibly unreliable cassette player failed -- but it eventually grew on me. I did learn quickly though that discussions with my parents could not be held until AFTER the show was over.

I attended Myers Park High School, a huge public school with a diverse population of around 2800 students. While most of my peers weren't consistently up-to-date on current events, I was surprised to find that many paid at least some attention to the news, especially during the presidential campaign last year. Many students watched the Colbert Report or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (watching it every night is a favorite pastime of my brother and I).

Another news source of my peers was our school newspaper, The Hoofprint. It was actually fairly popular among the student body (and I'm not just saying that because I was on the staff). We strived to produce a paper that was controversial and acted as a voice for the overlooked members of our school's population -- even in the face of opposition from the school administration. We included stories on homosexuality, underage drinking, overcrowding, students' rights, and the achievement gap. We balanced those with human interest pieces and funny columns to create a well-rounded paper. Features about unusual individuals, such as a teacher's brother who was biking around the world and two teachers who compete in the Highland games, drew students in with their originality. The paper may not have reached everyone at Myers Park, but on distribution day, it was exciting to see how many students spent class time flipping through the newspaper (although some teachers weren't particularly pleased with the distraction).

The Charlotte region's main newspaper is The Charlotte Observer. The paper's once stocky appearance has become increasingly slim, and the decrease in the number of stories written by local reporters is equally alarming. I believe more and more Charlotte residents are turning to the Internet as their primary source of news. Much of Charlotte's economy revolves around the banking industry -- an industry that depends heavily on nationwide events and companies -- and, as a result, people with careers in this field turn to national news sources online such as The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. With the state of Charlotte so closely tied to the national financial industry, local news often takes a backseat. In addition, the local news network provides a brief rundown of noteworthy events -- a quicker and more convenient alternative to reading the newspaper. Other publications, such as Charlotte Weekly and Charlotte Parent, target specific groups of the population and are read by a limited group of people.

Gossip is a source of news for almost everyone in Charlotte (whether it is intentional or not). Some residents are experts at spreading news through carpool lines, phone trees, PTA meetings, clubs, and social events. I have witnessed this firsthand with my mom's book club -- their discussion of novels often morphs into a discussion of the personal lives of themselves and others. But don't get me wrong. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a horrible thing. I think gossip has gotten a bad rep; pop culture frequently associates it with catty girls and harmful rumors. Honestly, though it may not be the most reliable source of news, it is still an effective way to spread information. It provides basic information to people that they can then further investigate themselves. Individuals who might otherwise never learn about an event may hear about it from a friend and look it up. In the end, this exchange of news is unavoidable. We should embrace it and make more accessible tools for people to check the validity of gossip, enhancing the positive news-sharing aspect of it while negating the potential for spreading rumors.