Politics, Compartmentalized (anti-intellectualized?)

There is a lot in politics and political coverage that I can (and have) criticized. From the unneeded emphasis on religion to superfluous character bashing, it’s a subject I've come to disdain from over-exposure and general ennui and cynicism. (Oh, hormones)

But there’s been one overarching trend that I’ve noticed in political coverage that is something I have little to no opinion toward. That is, that political coverage—hell, journalism in general—has begun to simplify every issue, every character trait into bite-size, easy to swallow formats. Take CNN’s election website “Election center 2008” for instance. Headed up with a section titled “meet the candidates,” each contender is broken down into his or her essentials: place of birth, current job, spending record, stance on push button issues, poll records, supporters, advisers. . . it’s all there in prettily designed boxes and non threatening portions. The same can be seen in Yahoo’s Election 08 page. Top stories are parsed out from stories about religion, social issues, and opinion an editorial pieces. Everything is categorized, classified, labeled.
Okay, maybe I lied. . . I do have an opinion. (Surprise, surprise.) While on the one hand, easy to read formats could encourage readers to learn the facts, the big picture. On the other hand, too often, readers only get one side of the story. Given the choice to click on what they wish, consumers too often create a self editorialized world of political journalism. Even reading a hard copy of Newsweek magazine, I found myself attracted to only certain displays of my favorite candidate’s faces and quotes. Dying are the sweeping political stories, which focus on the big picture of the entire candidate (or even better, the big picture of the political arena itself.)

Be this a fault in today’s readership or a fault in the field of journalism, I don’t know.

I just know that nobody except for you will read this, Prof Drew, because it’s far too large a block of text. Most readers need shorter statements, more pictures, more colors and a good deal less thought.

Overkill much?

To be labeled a plagiarist as a journalist is a death sentence. You become an untouchable--a member of that gollum-like class who will never see their name in print ever again unless Hollywood decides to make a movie about your giant screw up and cast Hayden Christiansen to play you (Shattering Glass, anyone?) This is why it's absolutely imperative that the word plagiarism be used with special care...because if thrown around carelessly, it can ruin lives.

Which brings me to the case of Professor John C. Merrill from the University of Missouri. Dismissed from his job and smeared as a journalist, the man's legacy of a journalistic career was blown to pieces due to a "plagiarism" scandal. The writing in question: a column in which he had not attributed a quote, originally collected by a student journalist.

Now let's consider. Was this a case of plagiarism? Yes, in the technical sense. Was it an example of plagiarism that warranted his dismissal? Not at all. Plagiarism is like any other crime...there are distinct levels of severity. A misdemeanor is not comparable to a conviction of manslaughter and should not elicit the same verdict. Essentially, Professor Merrill got sentenced to prison life when a couple weeks of community service should have done the trick.

It's a case of flagrant overkill, if you ask me. Why should someone be fired for quoting something someone said, simply because someone else heard it first, especially if it's an opinion piece? I know myriad professional columnists who do this on a regular basis. The only difference in this case was that the quote was drawn from a student publication. Strange double standard.

I myself have felt the tyranny of plagiarism nazis in the past. Asked to write a paper about a social issue, my senior year of high school, I pulled several paragraphs from my own past papers on anti-intellectualism. My teacher happened to have read a previous paper of mine and "confronted" me about it. I readily admitted to it, as all the work was mine and I felt I was safe in recycling my own hard-earned research. I got an F on the paper.

We live in a paranoid society, overburdened with the pressure to appear moral, rather than be moral. Far too often, we miss the point and castigate someone to form an "example" but all it ultimately does is scare the living daylights out of everyone. So now we're all huddling among ourselves, afraid to take a chance with our writing. And that, ultimately, is what is going to murder journalism.

The O-effect

O-bama was on O-prah last week and it's caused oh, such a great stir in the political world. Okay, maybe not a huge stir, but certainly some ripples. Though not usually active in the political world, Oprah has publicly thrown her support behind Barrack Obama, much like she does to the book of the week. The question now is whether it leads to "best seller."

An AP wire article stated that "A poll conducted in September, not long after Winfrey held a fundraiser for Obama, by the Pew Research Center found that 69 percent of respondents, or nearly seven in 10 Americans, would not be influenced by Winfrey's endorsement of a political candidate. On the other hand, 60 percent believed her support would help Obama, and only 3 percent said it would hurt him."

Calling on celebrities to campaign has always been hit or miss for candidates. In 2004, Bruce Springsteen lured 80,000 Wisconsins out to see John Kerry--a priceless voter-contact opportunity. On the other hand, a racy comment from Whoopie Goldberg during a Kerry rally caused as much damage as Springstein helped.

As former political speechwriter Marty Kaplan puts it, "celebrities are always one racy joke or DUI away from an embarrassment." Sorry Britney, no political campaigning for you today.

But many argue that Oprah is in a league of her own. Her advocacy could potentially affect over 9 million viewers and countless more through O Magazine and her website. Plus, thanks to an exemption from the equal time provision of the FCC, she can tout a politician's virtue as much and as often as she wants. (Of course, Oprah promises not to but you can see the potential power of celebrity.)

Oh, politics.

Paying for an Edge

This section of reading mirrored a lot of what was covered in Journalism Ethics last year, but the one issue that came up that I hadn't thought about before was "checkbook journalism."

As far as I can tell, journalists are in constant competition, always poised on the proverbial blocks, waiting for a good story like a runner waits for the blast of the starting gun. So it makes sense that at some point in the game, journalists might have to pay sources for information.

"It's hard to argue that the ordinary person shouldn't share in the benefit of what's going to be a commercial product," says Everette Dennis, senior vice president of the Freedom Forum International Consortium of Universities.

But is journalism really a commercial product? If so, then I'm out. Now.

And on the financial end of things, can journalists afford to pay off their sources? Journalism and wealth aren't normally used in the same sentence.

But more than that, I'm worried about what this says about journalism and our society in general. If people expect payment for quotes, then where is the social duty in journalism? Money has a tendency to suck the dignity out of a profession.

It just worries me, that's all

Book Cover Politics

Maybe it's trite of me to draw on the age old saying "don't judge a book by its cover" but I could think of nothing else to describe Rudy Giuliani's rise in politics.

This conclusion was something I drew from reading an editorial by Gerald F. Seib in the Washington Post who is equally baffled by Rudy's meteoric rise as a republican presidential candidate. I mean, let's review: Giuliani a) supports abortion b) supports gay rights c) support gun control d) commands the support of 33% of Republicans.

One of these things is not like the others.

In the words of Mr Seib, "the last supporter of abortion rights who made a plausible run for the party's nomination was then-California Gov. Pete Wilson in 1996, and he lasted about as long as a red-eye flight from the West Coast."

So what's happening here? It's simple: people like a macho man. Giuliani is seen as a leader, a tough guy, a winner and this image trumps everything including his wrecked family life, his flamboyancy and his stance on social issues.

Which, in the end just seems like pure desperation to me.

The Cool Kids

There's no doubt about it, investigative journalists are the "cool kids" on the playground of journalism. After all, any job that warns people that "lack of courage" (pg 403) might be a deterrent, has to be pretty badass. This is the journalistic world that Hollywood loves, that foolish aspiring journalists (like myself) think they're enterting.

But like the cool kids, investigative journalists have their issues. (And I'm not talking about the glamorous drug-soaked kind of issues.) Careful observation and patience--neither of which I possess in large quantities--is of the utmost. Being able to read administrative drivel is also important. Not only do investigative journalists have to deal with finding written sources, they also must interpret them. What does a 5500 form mean? Where are they found? The corporate ocean is filled with illegible plasma.

Makes me thinkg, maybe I should just stay an average kid.

The Bush Factor

Forget hiding in the bushes, Republicans have been trying to hide a very problematic Bush.

George W. Bush, that is.

A New York Times editorial compared the number of times that Democrats have mentioned the current president's name versus the number of times that Republicans have invoked it. The number? 47 to 2. (One of the 2 Republican mentions was actually a criticism by Representative Ron Paul from Texas.) Pretty dire stuff which brings up questions about what to do with a moron for President?

Perhaps moron is too harsh a word... but what else should we assume about a President whose approval ratings are the lowest of any president since the "invention of modern polling"? Republicans are saddled with the task of delicately separating themselves from the current Republican president.

Some don't mention him, but emphasize the future (Mitt Romney's campaign slogan is "Change begins with us") while others selectively support him. Giuliani "praises Mr. Bush as keeping the nation safe even as he presents himself as a competent manager, perhaps to draw a contrast with the president." (Which means Bush was what, not competent? Oh the word-games politicians play.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats are eating Bush up like Halloween candy.

In the end, however, I can't help but wonder at whether this phenomenon is a beneficial one to America. I cannot abide George W. Bush but at the same time, I would be foolish to let his idiocy affect my decision regarding the next President of the United States. I feel as though voters are too often reactionary. Dissatisfaction with leadership is associated with the wrong attributes--such as party affiliation--which then leads to faulty decision making and the absolute last thing we need is another logical fallacy in Washington.

So I guess, no matter who mentions Bush, I'll try and take an objective look at what's actually being said.

nitty gritty

Journalism, like so many other longstanding professions, has its broad stroke image. One thinks of a journalist--crime beat journalists especially-- and up comes the image of the hardened cynic, scotch in one hand, cigarette in the other, typewriter whirring.

What one doesn't imagine is a journalist poring over details of subpoenas, gag orders and other legal hodgepodge. I suppose it's obvious that beat reporting requires a very specific and thorough knowledge of a narrow strip of society. What I didn't think about was my own place in the world of beat reporting. To be entirely honest, I don't have an outstanding interest in one area. The environment, perhaps, maybe Asian dynamics, but ultimately I have no idea. Do certain personalities lend themselves to certain beats? If so, then where do I fit in? (I don't think I could handle crime reporting... as stated in chapter 14, "police work seldom attracks saints and police officers are frequently cynical, often prejudiced, occasionally dishonest. I don't think I could handle that sort of company in addition to having to memorize legal niceties.

Paying for Positivity

Barrack Obama has tried very hard to mold himself as the "good guy" among his political competitors.

Good, meaning non-mudslinging. According to a Reuters article, Barrack's campaign has been devoted to painstakingly carving out his persona as the peacemaker, just the sort of positive candidate that could bridge the widening partisan gap.

Too bad Hillary's still winning in the polls.

Now Obama is helplessly pinned by his own public image. He must choose between betraying that image and possibly alienating his hard-earned supporters. So far, society seems set on destroying the image. Observe:
-"If he's playing to win, they are going to have to ratchet it up," says Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN.
-"Voters here like a scrappy underdog, and he never fit that role" says Dante Scala, a political analyst at the University of New Hampshire

Ratchet up? Scrappy? What? The political world has always nurtured the "survival of the fittest" mentality but seriously? At a time when our country is so divided a bill has more of a chance to get hit by lightning than to get passed, how can we castigate a candidate who's trying to make amends? (Or at least pretends to.)

Comments, eh?

They sure don't make first ladies like they used to
John Edwards and his Environmental Platform

Beauty Parlor Politics

Obamania

News Reporting and Writing

Chapter 8, George Orwell, TMI, and Acadmic Writing

Political Blogging

"Research Steps on Videogames"

Minor Details

One of the most striking parts of Chapter 13 was the section on“Issues of Taste and Ethics.” It reminded me strongly of an argument we had to write during Journalism Ethics last year which discussed the morality of including children in stories:

The question of whether a minor should be interviewed in a story is a matter of taste, not of ethics. Provided the child holds no information that can genuinely harm a group or an individual, including him/herself, there are no ethical roadblocks worth considering. With the consent of a parent or guardian, there is no legal obstacle, so the issue becomes, “How does interviewing a child benefit the story?” (After all, at their roots, all journalists are storytellers.)
Thus, as a journalist one must determine what type of story is being told and subsequently, how important a role the minor had to play in it. If a minor is a unique participant in a story---unique, apart from his/her age, that is---then an interview is acceptable out of necessity. Just as a story about three bears cannot be properly told without the third bear’s perspective, a story about a case of child abuse cannot be properly told without the child’s perspective.
If, however, the minor is only an appendage---an afterthought meant to aggravate the audience’s tear ducts---then one should reconsider the interview’s importance. If the information can be obtained just as easily from an adult, then it should be.
The only exception to this rule is in the case of local community stories where harrowing ethical issues are a rarity. A county fair or a local concert, for instance, is an acceptable context in which to interview children (for obvious reasons.)
Ultimately, using children as tools for titillation should be avoided at all costs. Just as in fiction, useless characters only clutter up the story.

Go Gore, Baby!

It’s been a moody decade for Al Gore. Rushing from Vice President, to Presidential candidate to having Florida pull the rug out from under his potential Presidency, he’s one of those people who, not given a moment to breathe, have their lives sculpted out for them. Not only their lives, but their image.

Gore has endured the same jabs at his image as many a politician. Stiff and overly bookish, he was tagged as a policy-narc with the personality of a turnip. Thus, it only makes sense that it took a presidential defeat and the flight of his many of his image-hawks that he was able to “be himself.” (I didn’t think Gore knew what a sense of humor was until I saw An Inconvenient Truth)

Albeit, this is pure speculation on my part but how else can you explain the return to his environmental roots, his Oscar Award and now (*drumroll*) his Nobel Peace Prize.

Way to go, Al. I give you mad props.

What’s funny about the political arena is that often, you have to detach yourself from politics in order to be successful as a person.

Case in point: with the Peace Prize under his belt, people are whispering of Gore throwing his name into the Presidential pool. It’s as if success in politics can only lead one way: to the White House.

Gore, to his credit, has not bolstered any of these rumors. But at the same time, his aides have not denied the claims outright either.


I can only hope that everything in Washington isn’t just an act.

More than words

I read a particularly interesting piece in the Washington Post today, titled "Read Her Lips. And Hands. Oh, And Eyes, Too"

As its title suggests, the article talks about the body language of presidential candidates during speechs, debates and other public events. Three analysts took painstaking note of physical communication during a Democratic debate, calling Hillary a master of "rhetorical jhujitsu" while reprimanding Dodd for moving too quickly. "Man, slow it down! " said analyst Seth Pendleton. "His points are good, but things run together... You want the audience to appreciate it. It's like what they say in jazz -- the space between the notes."

Which makes me think: "how much am I affected by demeanor?" I've heard that famous story about the Nixon-Kennedy debate in which Kennedy's smooth aesthetic charm won TV viewers over in torrents while Nixon won the radio debate with raw logic. I like to think of myself as someone rooted in fact...but can I really say I'm not swayed by how things appear?

I have no clue.

Do as I say...

There's a line in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" that I live and die by as a writer. "Brevity is the soul of wit," he states about halfway through the second act. Ironically, it comes from the mouth of Polonius, the blustering and notably long-winded comic relief, whose advice is taken by nobody.

Funny, how history repeats itself.

Much later, in both Orwell's "Politics and the English Language,” and "Five Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose,” each authors laments the "current" state of the English language. Classrooms the world over warn students against over-elaboration (or pretentious diction, as Orwell says), passive voice, dead metaphors and myriad other leeches of good writing.

What I find baffling is that while these rules are preached, assigned readings so often break these very same rules. History texts, research papers, scientific analysis, even some NYTimes ledes...all revel in "academia-speak." wordy, boring, and often indecipherable. And as they say, mistakes garner mistakes.

Are we a society of Poloniuses?

Thinking Outside the...Country?

It's been a while since I've caught up on my "it's all politics" podcast so this story is a little old but it still caught my attention (ear?)

Apparently a number of presidential candidates--Obama, Giuliani, Clinton-- have been fundraising overseas! Giuliani hosted an elaborate fundraising dinner in order to court, strangely enough, American financiers and businesspeople who are currently living in Great Britain.

Seems like a bit of a long shot at first, doesn't it?

But on second glance, one wonders at the economic insinuations this political move makes. If enough movers and shakers in the financial are abroad for a political candidate to seek them out...what does this say about where American money?

Of course, it could just be that our presidential candidates were looking for a vacation.

Trolling the Waters

I am not a patient person. My parents will readily attest to my glaring lack of attention span when faced with any lecture that extends beyond 20-minutes. (Although they might find me more attentive if they veered away from the topic of my myriad flaws.) I cannot abide sitting still. If a movie’s pacing drags, I’m gone. If food takes too long to prepare, I reach for a granola bar. If a professor wanders, so do I.

Which makes reporting on meetings, speeches and news conferences a particular challenge for me.

Apart from the obvious challenge of staying awake, the news value of these events isn’t immediately apparent. Whereas events like a car crash, a workers strike or a murder, have direct and blatant news value, the reporter must glean through a lot of tripe in order to find what’s truly newsworthy in a speech.

The same holds true for news releases. Judd Slivka, reporter for the Arizona Republic claims to receive over 400 pieces of mail a week and manage to pull seeds for real stories from the torrent. I cannot imagine having the time, let alone the patience and eye to do that. As stated in “News Reporting and Writing,” news releases are more often than not, “far from earthshaking.” I hear that and already my eyes start glazing over.

When I was little, my dad and I used to fish in our pond. It was an ordeal that involved me throwing rocks to see the ripples, trying to catch frogs, running around in circles, dipping my toe in to see how cold the water was and generally not fishing. My dad would sit in the grass, reeling in his line, waiting.

I can only hope to do the same when the time comes.

Dearly.

I cannot write about obituaries as a journalist today.

My family suffered a death this weekend. The thought of writing objectively (yet personally), succinctly (yet fully)....is too much.

Suffice it to say that one cannot afford to become jaded in this stereotypically bottom-rung job. It would hurt too much.

Expect Expectorating.

Americans are a people of extremes...especially when it comes to politics. Be it push button issues like stem cell research and gay marriage or the way political candidates paint themselves in broad, sweeping strokes, Washington inhabitants are hard-wired for stereotype.

When General Petraeus testified on the war in Iraq in both the House of Representatives and the Senate a couple weeks ago, he bore the brunt of this sort of thinking. Despite the veracity of Petreaus' concrete facts,
In a manner that a Washington Post editorial likened to the "days when soldiers and sailors were spat upon by large segments of anti-war activists in the '60s and early '70s," an angry bunch of senators lambasted the General for rubbing their agendas the wrong way. Petreaus' bias was called into question with comments like the one Sen. Dick Durbin spit out in Congressional Weekly:

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," --Durbin

I am wholeheartedly oppose the war...but to castigate someone for simply stating the facts is almost as deplorable as sending a country to war on false claims. Far too often, people confuse the war with the people fighitng the war.

But I suppose that's to be expected in Washington.

Don't quote me on this...

Sometimes, as a journalist, I hate people.

I've had people cuss me out for approaching them and requesting a harmless man-on-the-street interview. I've had sources be on their way to a great quote only to be stopped dead once they catch sight of a pen and pad (or worse yet, a minidisk recorder.) I've had to sit through circuitous, redundant rants, one-word answer interviews and just plain rude people.

So it strikes me as funny, that our textbook emphasizes the logistics of quoting (how to use ellipses, when to paraphrase etc.) when in my experience, you're often lucky to just get people to talk.

This is not to say that the text wasn't pointing out important aspects of quoting.

One thing, that I did find reassuring, however was the section on "accurate" quoting. In particular, the study that Arizona University Professor, Adrienne Leher did that showed 13 out of 98 quotes taken from Arizona newspapers were 100% accurate. (God knows I've done my share of fudging when it comes to exact quoting.) It's just nice to hear I'm not alone.

Fine Lines

I won't sugarcoat it; I'm a shameless liberal when it comes to push button issues. I'm adamantly pro-choice, I believe gays should be given the right to legally wed without question and above all, I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. Hands down.

Which is why I found it difficult at first, to read the headline "McCain: 'I'm a Baptist'" in Yahoo News' election coverage. (click here to read the article)

Apparently McCain, who until recently identified himself as an Episcopalian, declared himself a Baptist while campaigning in South Carolina earlier today. "It's well known because I'm an active member of the church," he said. "It plays a role in my life.

My first reaction to this flagrant blurring of the line between Church and State on both McCain's part as well as the media's was to rant the usual diatribes. "RELIGION SHOULDN"T BE CONSIDERED DURING THE POLITICAL PROCESS!" cried the crazy hippie in me.

Afterwards, however, I realized that A. I'd never sat down and thought through the logistics of such a statement and B. I had no clue what the actual difference between the two denominations were. Christianity to me is still a nebulous blob of ideology. (Talk about blurry lines.)

Even after researching it, I'm still somewhat unclear about the differentiations. Here, however, is my butchered sparknotes version of my findings. (Anyone who knows better, please don't hate me.)

Baptists are literalists; to them, the Bible is word by word law to be interpreted by each individual. (Everyone's required to have their own bible and there's no final authority beyond your own interpretation.) Many support "litmus paper tests" of faith based on how well one knows the bible etc.

Episcopalians, in contrast, are more people-centered. The essence of God lies in group dynamics and community outreach. Litmus tests tend to be spurned.

To me, these differences are so minute to outsiders that they almost seem superfluous. Yet, they play an enormous role in the lives of those who follow such faiths.

What's most interesting is how this plays a role in McCain.

It's easy to deride politicians who promenade their faiths for the sake of public opinion. (*cough*BUSH*cough) Yet, at the same time it's unfair to ask them not to consider it at all. Faith is an inherent part of soul, mind and personality. The fact that McCain is a Baptist does, in fact, affect his decision making process, his interpretation of the Constitution (our political Bible) and his approach to people in general.

Suddenly, my own lines are blurring.

Oh Hail ye Great Objectiv-ism

As a journalism student, I often hear about the pillars of journalism. "Relevance, Usefulness, Interest," preach the Missouri Group on page four of "News Reporting and Writing" while Bob Woodward idealizes a story as "the best obtainable version of the truth."

These concepts, which are so often taken for granted, are inherently flawed however. "Journalists," wrote Michael Schudson in his book Discovering the News," came to believe in objectivity, to the extent that they did because they wanted to, needed to, were forced by ordinary human aspiration to see escape from their deep convictions of doubt and drift."

Like a religion that relies on utter faith in one idea--like the divinity of Christ or the goodness of man--journalists base their faith on the idea that humans have the ability to be objective. Ironic, really. A quality that is usually associated with science is actually a belief employed in the pursuit of the spirit of journalism.

Thus, journalists are romantic scientists. Using the neutrality of science and the heart of social do-gooder, it is a culture in ideological limbo.

And like religion, there is never a solid answer.

Political Gaming

I played Presidential Pong today. I found it on CNN's election center and putzed around with it for a while until I realize how much of my life I'd sacrificed for it. (45 minutes. Don't judge me.)

It was embarrassing; the game wasn't remotely fun. You pick your candidate, your opponent and you bat a ball around on a screen. (I liked playing as Bill Richardson cause his cartoon-self looks like a middle-aged Charlie Brown, poor dear.)

The best part of the game are the "power ups." Each player only gets three and they differ from candidate to candidate. Hilary breaks out the Clinton family whenever she starts sweating, McCain dons a helmet and power ups on his war veteran days and whenever Obama hits the ball--his tongue stick out when this happens-- he likes to power up on Lincoln's Statehouse. (Nothing sticks to the guy!) If you don't believe me, click here.

As silly as this all seems, however, these oversimplification of how presidential candidates are pigeonholed is not far from the truth. In today's world of celebrity obsession and the National Enquirer, a single rumor (like an expensive haircut) or a single issue (Mitt Romney and his gay crusade) can make or break a candidate.

If a haircut can tarnish a man's image, one would think that something like the Petraeus-Crocker Report, essentially a report card on the Iraq War, would put forth unbelievable political tremors among our current administration.

Think again.

In a Washington Post-ABC news poll, showed a sweeping skepticism among American voters when it came to whether Petraeus' testimony would have any effect on the current Iraq policy. "Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is," stated the Washington-Post in an op-ed piece.

With the Bush administration facing plummeting approval ratings and only about a third of the United States believing in the party line on Iraq, the spotlight is again on the candidates to provide one thing above all: change.

Because in the end, war is not a game.

How to Kill Enthusiasm

Step 1: Find journalism student (preferably fresh.)

Step 2: Carefully remove marrow from the first two paragraphs of an article.

Step 3: Label anatomy of an article and then overexplain each segment. The use of models, diagrams, and strange pictures from the 80's are useful in this step.

Step 4: Have student read extensive piece on future of newspapers. (Doomed. We're all doomed.)

Step 5: Serve chilled.







Alright this is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Chapters six and seven from the Missouri Group's "News Reporting and Writing" had its strong points. Nothing written was wrong. Yet, it's this sort of analysis that kills my appetite for journalism. The idea of spitting out inverted pyramids for the rest of my life is as far from appealing as I can possibly imagine. Journalism offers (and therefore needs) so much more than that both in terms of passion and skill. This reading committed the same crime that every English class I took in high school did... it makes journalism too concrete. "Use figures of speech" instructs chapter seven. "Analogies such as similes and metaphors permit writers to show similarities and contrasts." True, but wouldn't you think that journalism students at this stage would know such a thing?

I suppose I just need more ambiguity when it comes to my future career.

Film Noir in Washington

Everyone knows the scene. A frenzied assistant rushes into a sumptuously decorated office where a man in Armani sits awaiting the news he already knows. "Sir, sir! It's in all the papers! They know about the money. WE'RE RUINED." Shady workings of a political underworld are brought to light in the headlines of spinning newspapers, angry murmurs fill a courtroom as a gavel swings and the culprit is stripped of his riches in the name of justice.

What's fascinating, however, is when real life puts a twist on this classic drama.

Norman Hsu, sallow-faced with bags under his eyes nearly as deep as his pockets, disappeared this morning right before his court hearing was to take place in Red Wood City . A heavyweight campaign donor, this now-fugitive who was considered a "hillraiser" by the Clinton campaign has been disgraced for multiple cases of illegality in his practices as a fundraiser. Having donated over $600,000 to democrats around the country, his arrest has created an understandable stir. HIs disappearance today echoes his vanishing act back in 1992 when charged with fraud. The details get shadier and shadier as one digs deeper into hsi backstory. Supposedly working in the Hong Kong garment industry during the respite between his first arrest and his reemergence onto the American political scene five years ago, there is little to no trace of his work there. An article in the New York Times states that "an address [Hsu] has given as his office in New York’s garment district seems to be little more than a mail drop, and people who work nearby have said they rarely see him. This guy is ready for the big screen.

Yet the fact that the political world is this theatrical worries me. Perhaps it's naiive to think so but politics--in particular, a Presidential election--should be a creature of fact not affiliation. Attacks have already been made on the recipients of Hsu's cash. Typing Norman Hsu's name into the youtube search and videos pop up screaming "Fugitives for Hilary" and "HILARY'S CHINESE MONEY." In response, candidates have been throwing the hot money at charities, hoping to assuage the possible public outcry. Falseness for falseness.

And it all makes me a little sad.

(For more info, visit http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democratic_fundraiser;_ylt=ArAXlf8sCBC2KMwHZk26v_jkbeRF)