August 30, 2004
Mexico City - the place to do murder

When Patrick Belton linked this article from WaPo on Oxblog, he linked it with this phrase: "worst...job...in the...world". I'd say diving in human wastewater would be in the top 10 for most of us. It certainly has a very high "yuck" factor. But what caught my eye (unsurprisingly) was this graph:

Barrios, a happy-go-lucky father of three, said none of it bothers him -- not the smell, not the dangerous spinning pump blades, not even the two cadavers. He never found out who they were, because they were carried off in the flowing waters. The police were not called. The divers, who periodically encounter bodies because sewers are popular spots for dumping murder victims, only call police when they bring a body to the surface.

Emphasis mine. If I spoke Spanish and had the money, I'd be down there on the next plane researching that part of the story. They don't even bring the bodies to the surface usually! How many do they find? I'd say decomposition in that bacteria-rich environment is quite accelerated. It's also interesting to me because in one of Kathy Reich's books (and I can't remember which one), her protagonist, a forensic anthropologist, is called in to make identification when a cadaver is found in the sluge of a sewer being cleaned with heavy equipment. At the time I thought, how bizarre to put a body there. Now I realize it was equal to a killer in the US dumping a body beside of the road somewhere - just business as usual.

How people treat the dead says a lot about their general attitude toward the living. I'm intrigued by this glimpse into the collective psyche of Mexico.

Posted by susanna at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
I wish they wouldn't

The NYT is naturally spinning like a top in their coverage of the Republican convention, but I'm afraid the party execs are making their job quite easy:

Republican leaders said yesterday that they would repeatedly remind the nation of the Sept. 11 attacks as their convention opens in New York City today, beginning a week in which the party seeks to pivot to the center and seize on street demonstrations to portray Democrats as extremist.

It's not a news analysis piece by name, but it is in practice with a distinctly negative tone. However, while my reasons are different, I do have to agree that a huge emphasis on 9/11 is not the best choice. For the Dems to say that the Republicans are unusually heavy in their focus on 9/11 is rank hypocrisy - the whole point of John Kerry's war hero theme is to indicate that he can lead our country through the world that followed 9/11. And it's no greater opportunism to invoke the 9/11 victims than it is to invoke the American military dead from the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the complaints is that many of the 9/11 victims would not be for Bush themselves, yet he's essentially using their deaths for his gain. Yes, a lot of the 9/11 victims in New York City were probably liberal - they lived in New York. Some were likely quite conservative. I would say you'd have a similar split with the American military casualties, except with opposite political affiliations: more conservative than liberal. Why is it more risible to "use" the 9/11 victims than to "use" the American military war dead? I think, in fact, that the Dems inflict more harm - at least the Republicans don't say the 9/11 victims were mindless idiot lower class robots lured to their death with lies.

But, in my judgment, it's no compliment to say that the Republican convention planners are no worse and possibly better than the Dem convention planners. Exploitation is exploitation. It diminishes the harm to use it as a slogan. I wish the Republicans would talk about the future, about terrorism, that they would educate the nation on what it's like to fight for our freedom, and speak about strength, not victimization. They need to talk about why it's right to love this nation, and want to see it prosper free from outside attacks. It seems to me that the Dems are tearing down their own house as rapidly as they can get their hands on each brick in the wall. When the Republicans engage in exploitation themselves, they in essence are building back the house of resistance as quickly as the Dems pull it down. Why not build a house on the rock of reason instead?

It's amazing to see the demonstrations, and realize that the people demonstrating think they're going to sway voters toward their positions. Anyone susceptible to that is already on their side; the rest of the nation gets nauseated and just a little alarmed when they see it. They think, Is this what a Kerry administration would look like? The more I see it, the more I realize the truth of the insights in this article that I posted on before.

Someone needs to ask the Republican powerful this question: Why try to shoot someone who's committing suicide? You may wind up shooting yourself by accident.

Posted by susanna at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 28, 2004
What media bias - Part 1,748,201

The Scrapbook at The Weekly Standard has a great takedown of presidential "historian" (fictorian?) Douglas Brinkley. But the best is saved for last, in this little nugget at the end:

"Frigging" Reuters

Last Thursday a U.S. district court judge in New York ruled unconstitutional last year's Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, notwithstanding his finding that the surgical procedure at issue is "gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized." The Supreme Court, Judge Richard Casey explained, had left him little latitude to decide otherwise.

Whereupon Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, sent out an email press release highlighting the importance of this fall's presidential election to the future of the Supreme Court and the practice of abortion both.

Whereupon a man named Todd Eastham, who plainly lacks the necessary temperament to serve as North American news editor for the Reuters wire service--but holds that job anyway--emailed Johnson right back, as follows:

"What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?"

THE SCRAPBOOK recommends that Mr. Eastham quit his current job and become a presidential historian.

Beautiful.

Posted by susanna at 10:52 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
August 27, 2004
Links make a difference

Today I've spent most of my time reading dissertation abstracts to determine which dissertations I need to review for the literature review of my dissertation prospectus. Despite how dreary sounding that is, it's actually been quite fascinating, if slow going at times. And just now I came across one of a dissertation by Stanley Ketterer that I thought all of you would find interesting - it says that the more links you have an online story, the more engaged the reader will be:

Specifically, the study looked at the effects of hypertext links, story type and personality variables on readers' perceptions of crime stories in online newspapers. Crime stories were used because readers are interested in them, the media covers them extensively, and critics have charged that they often lack context. Prototypes of an online publications were used that included four types of crime stories and zero, 2 or 4 links. Half the crime stories were episodic, i.e. about a specific incident, and half were thematic, i.e. about an issue. Participants' online behavior was tracked electronically and psychographic measures were derived from a questionnaire. The results show participants who had links spent more time reading and were better informed than those who did not have links. The more links that were provided, the more links were noticed and used. The kind of link was also important. Participants had more knowledge of and liked background, chart and human interest story. They read and clicked on more links with episodic stories, but had more knowledge of thematic stories and their links.

Some of that seems logical to the point of doh!, but Big Media hasn't gotten the point yet. You don't see heavily linked pieces on their sites like you do on blogs. I understand the point of keeping people on your site, but they don't even provide internal links. What they don't understand, and this research shows, is that readers learn more, absorb their information more, when they're pulled into the issue with multiple resources at their fingertips. It makes the whole experience more interesting. And, if you're engrossed, you're more likely to read the entire thing. You're also more likely to see that publication as engaging, which means you'll come back more. Additionally, the abstract points out that the more links there were, the more links people used. That means they came back to the original article and read more. It kept their interest. It kept them on the page, so they're seeing the advertising longer - if that's the point, which it seems to be for the online media, given that they'd have articles bristling with links (just like a blog!) if their true goal was imparting information and understanding.

The abstract database that this came from is restricted to registered Rutgers students, but I gave you the bulk of it. For further reference, the bibliographic cite is in MORE.

UPDATE: Found the full abstract here. Just do a "find" search on the page, it's about a 10th of the way down (very long page). Dr. Ketterer is apparently now on the faculty of the Mass Communications Department in the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University. One wonders what he thinks of blogs? Interestingly enough, one of his areas of specialty is media credibility. He has an extensive journalism background.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 03:14 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (1)
The left gets it right about protests

The Village Voice gets it right about the motives, intent and likely actual result of the protestors amassing in NYC to cause trouble for the Republican Convention:

Politics is about communication. If you leave questions of what you are communicating—to the cops, to the watching public—entirely up in the air, you are not really doing politics at all.

The willful denial of this fact does not infect only 19-year-olds. Ed Hedemann has been working for peace ever since he refused induction into the military in 1969. His group, the War Resisters League, has planned its action with exquisite care, and with a strategic dignity: Figures dressed in white to represent mourning will gather at the World Trade Center site; marching across the city as close to Madison Square Garden as practicable, they will hold a " 'die-in,' a way to graphically represent all those who have been killed by the government's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." But even an old hand like Hedemann simply turns off his brain when asked about a fundamental problem in political communications: that even the most passive protesters, when arrested, are often perceived by the public—as they were in Chicago in 1968—as bringers of anarchy, and end up hurting the causes they profess to help.

The article, using as a framing tool a comparison of the 1968 Democrat convention in Chicago that nominated Hubert Humphrey with the 2004 Republican convention starting next week, is unabashedly anti-Bush. But reporter Rick Perlstein does an excellent job analyzing the protest mentality in the midst of an obvious plea that they not do what they're threatening to do. He even says of the protestors' hero, Martin Luther King Jr., "It would have taken all of King's powers of Christian love, I think, not to laugh in these people's faces." The article is so full of references to actual protestors that it's difficult to excerpt specific points without having to include paragraphs explaining who people are. But I think it's worth your time to read to understand the situation from their perspective.

Perlstein uses a number of leftist tropes to make his point: cops as evil beasts slavering to beat on protestors or anyone who tramples their egos; the "ugliness of the Bush regime"; the cattle-like fear of the average citizenry that sees just protests against an injust world as "anarchy" just because those slavering cop-beasts have to get involved. And yet his point is a good one, if you can paw through the verbal slime to get to it: You have to send a clear message to your targeted audience in a way they will hear it, not engage in self-indulgent street-plays for your own sense of self-aggrandizement and piety. Fortunately, I doubt any of his targeted audience will hear his voice of reason, and his apt uncovering of the protestors as arrogant and self-absorbed rings true. Scary that even the more reasoned on the left see the nuttiness, isn't it? I thought this passage was amusing and illustrative:

The site displays the kind of language whose vagueness might get hapless souls like Valentine put on 24-hour surveillance. It sounds innocent to write, "We must defend ourselves against possible attack like family and keep our spirits high." To Valentine, that means "just looking out for each other and taking care for each other." I point out that it might be interpreted differently by police intelligence—and that the importance of protesters' intentions not being misconstrued by paranoid cops is one of the reasons, as morally compromising as it might seem, to consult with authorities before a demonstration. She responds with self-satisfied cleverness: "We should not have to ask permission from the very people we're trying to protest."

One of the most telling aspects of the piece, however, is the opening. I'll just let Perlstein tell it, with a little help from me in the form of bolding:

One of the most exhilarating moments in Lewis Koch's life came in the summer of 1968. He was a producer for NBC News, based in Chicago, specializing in the anti-war movement—of which he was a sympathizer. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, he was an actor in what he thought was one of its glorious episodes. Cops were beating kids without provocation, and with the footage he was putting on the air, Middle America might finally realize that justice rested more with those protesting the war than those so violently defending it.

"I remember my self-satisfaction," Koch recalls, "and saying to myself, 'Oh, did you do a terrific job!' "

Then came the most traumatic moment in Lewis Koch's life.

"The phones would ring off the hook. People were furious. . . . Nothing I had intended had gone through. Actually what they saw were clear pictures of these young kids rioting. Chaos in their city." Next thing he knew, Richard Nixon had swept to presidential victory on the wings of a commercial proclaiming—above those selfsame pictures—that "the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence."

Now, remind me again about journalistic objectivity, about "no agendas", about fairness, etc.? About how journalists operate in this bias-free zone where they transcend their humanness and bring no personal frames or intent to their coverage? Thank you.

UPDATE: Edited for accuracy, see comments for details.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 08:42 AM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
August 25, 2004
Just curious...

While clicking around the blogosphere, I came across this collection of drivel from Kurt Vonnegut. It's all good, at least for a laugh, but this little section caught my attention and made me think (shocking, I know):

In case you haven't noticed, we are now almost as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis were.

That's Vonnegut talking. The "we" he refers to is not, of course, him, but the United States. And yes, he's invoking Hitler, which immediately empties his argument of any validity. But on the other hand... it led me to a curious consideration.

Repeatedly the left screams about how the US is worse than Hitler, that the world hates us more than the Nazis, etc ad nauseum, with the apparent goal of waking us (the "us" here meaning "brain dead moderates or frothing right wingers in the US") up to the horror of our diminished position in certain segments of the world.

But... is a comparison to Hitler actually a negative in those parts of the world?

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 09:52 AM | Comments (4) | Trackback (0)
So happy I'm gone

If you want to see more of NJ politics on the ground, don't just follow Jim McGreevey's dirty trail - check out Jersey City:

Tension around the November election for the unexpired term of the late Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham ratcheted up several notches yesterday when acting Mayor L. Harvey Smith, a candidate in the election, placed another candidate, city Police Chief Ronald Buonocore, on unpaid leave.

In response, Buonocore issued a statement through spokesman Dave Vermillion challenging Smith and another candidate, state Assemblyman Louis Manzo, to also leave office during the campaign.

Fascinating. As you know, I worked for JCPD for over three years, the last year with Buonocore as chief. I know the majority of these players, if not personally then by name and reputation. All I can say is... I'm so happy I'm gone.

If you're interested in my blathering about Jersey City politics, feel free to read on. If not, I won't inflict it on you.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 24, 2004
Lame, lame, lame

I've always liked the younger Bush set - the twins Jenna and Barbara. They seem like normal young ladies who want to get on with their life and aren't particularly interested in partaking of the glitz and glamor of "My Dad is President". Of course, when they learned to talk, they could have said, "My Granddad is Vice President", and when they were moving from child to adolescent, they could say, "My Granddad is President". And there wasn't much of a gap there before they could say, "My Dad is Governor" and then, well, you know. So I'm sure there's not much new and exciting about it all, and plenty annoying when it means your every teenage and college piccadillo is witnessed by grim security or Secret Service agents, and you're dogged by a media drooling after something to hurt your father with. So I'm sympathetic, and admiring of their independence.

I also thought it was classy of the President and Mrs. Bush to leave the extent of their daughters' participation in the campaign up to the girls, and likewise a loving gesture on the twins' part to put themselves in front of the runaway media train to support their dad. That's why I'm really really sorry the campaign has done them no favors in this, their first email for the campaign. I'll paste it here in just a second, but first I want to say this:

Either it was written by a particularly vacuous friend of the Bush girls, or it was written by a Republican marketing type who wouldn't know how to talk to the under 25s if his career depended on it. Which in this case, it may. Here we go (picture was embedded in the email too):

JenandBarb-photo.jpg

Dear Susanna,

We're sure that you have no doubt who we'll be voting for in November. But you should also know that we would be voting for our Dad in this election even if he had not raised us, loved us, tutored us, coached us, and even listened to a few excuses from us for late curfews. We have been privileged to know our President personally and we know he is the right person to lead our country - especially when there are so many important issues at stake.

Our Dad has qualities that are needed in a good President - loyalty, humor (embarrassing as it sometimes may be), compassion, and, most importantly, integrity. We're not the only ones who see it. In fact, our friends - from varying political backgrounds - are supporting our Dad in November. Not only because of his decisions to liberate the women of Afghanistan or bring freedom to the people of Iraq, but because during the last ten years they met a man whose title was Governor or President, but who was always happy to be known as "our Dad." He made everyone feel welcome and comfortable in our house (except for the occasional boyfriend) and our friends got to know him as a really good guy.

We know that when you get to know his record as President, you too will feel compelled to participate in this year's election - and hopefully get involved in the campaign, too. We know it can be hard to find time to think about politics. We just graduated from college and are perfectly aware that schoolwork, parties, and extra-curricular activities keep students busy, away from campaigns and voting booths. In the last election, less than half of 18- to 24-year-olds were registered to vote, and only 32% of them actually did vote. Sadly, many Americans our age did not take advantage of their right to vote.

We are asking you to get involved with this campaign not only because it is the most critical election of our lifetime, but also because we have the ability to positively change our future. Please encourage your friends to sign up on the campaign's web site (www.GeorgeWBush.com) and register to vote online. At the web site you'll also find a lot of information about how to get involved in our Dad's re-election campaign. It's an easy process, and it's the best way to have a say in this year's election.

Thanks for taking a few minutes to think about some big issues. This is a really important election, and we know that with your help our Dad will win in November.

This email manages to competely insult the 25 and under crowd. First, it's written in a I'm-pretending-to-be-a-young-thing! (giggle) tone. You sense that it fully expected the response to be, "Um, like, yeah! Cool! Like, rad! I'll vote for their dad! Heh! Did you hear? I rhymed!" Any marginally news-conscious 25-and-under is going to know enough about politics to be put off by that tone. And was it just the women in Afghanistan that were "liberated", or was it maybe the whole population excepting terrorists? It's bad enough that the girls are pictured like two little sweet things - eye candy - and not as even marginally serious young women. Why add insult to injury?

This is a failed opportunity. There are a lot of things that the Bush campaign could address that would be legitimate concerns for the Jenna-Barb age group. Students are always interested in student loans, in college tuition costs, in crime on campus. Students and graduates are extremely concerned about the job market, what they can expect to earn and whether they can even find a job on finishing school. And whether or not they actually spend much time learning the reality of the situation in Iraq, you can bet they've heard plenty and it's not been favorable to Bush. To dismiss the entire war as it has been in this email is, not to put it lightly, stupid. Breathtakingly so, actually, since it's only addressed as an opening phrase in a sentence mainly about how the President is "also 'our Dad'"! How vacuous is that? Hey, he may be out freeing countries when he's at work, but what should be most important to you is that he's our Dad! I know they're proud of him, with good reason. But their pride in him is no reason for anyone else to vote for him. Why not give the young voters something to really think about? Maybe inane campaign approaches like this is one reason so many young people don't vote. You don't make the time to vote unless you feel there's an issue important enough to make the effort, even if that issue is that you feel responsible to participate in our democratic process. No one will vote for President Bush because he's Jenna and Barbara's cool Dad!

If this is an example of the finest Republican minds reaching out to the youth of America, they'd be better off to shoot their computers now before they shoot themselves in the foot again. They'll get more votes just keeping their condescension to themselves.

UPDATE: The Associated Press has a brief article about the Bush twins' email, but it gives none of the interesting detail you see right here!

Posted by susanna at 03:48 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
Question to self:

You made and ate Cajun 15-Bean Soup just before going to teach your class tonight.

What were you thinking??

Tasty, though.

Posted by susanna at 02:21 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
NJ politics as usual, with a little headline spin

If you want to see the guts of politics at work, just read this article. Anyone who harbors the tiniest thought that McGreevey isn't doing everything he can to hold on to his political future, that should deep-six it. There's no logical reason for McGreevey to hang on to November except to keep some measure of his power on the NJ Dem playing field. And I'm not saying that the other Dems - or the Republicans either - are all saintly in this. But McGreevey is not even the cleanest in a pile of dirty politics.

As a side note, it's interesting that the entire article is about the machinations in the NJ Dem party, with the Republicans mentioned only twice, in passing, half-way through the article. They're not the focus, not in the least. And yet here is the headline:

Political infighting between N.J. Dems, GOP gets nasty

If you left out the "GOP" part of that, it would be an accurate headline. One wonders what precisely, if anything, was on the mind of the headline writer. Or was (s)he just following his inner bias?

Posted by susanna at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)