His appointment wasn’t unexpected, but the headlines that accompanied it were. News outlets including the New York Times, ABC News and MSNBC all seemed to harp on a single, comical facet of the story: Obama misses Richardson’s beard. 

Click to watch Obama discuss Richardson

The unusual but entertaining coverage underscored a developing trend in the contemporary media’s coverage of politics. 

The revival of Saturday Night Live and the cult following of shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show illustrate the new direction that audiences want their news coverage to follow.

The comedy sketches and parodies of the Presidential Election were more viral than virtually any other hard news story. The immense popularity of humorous news could prove to be a lifeline for an industry that could soon be placed on the endangered species list.

Journalism, by all accounts is changing. Journalists recognize that the only way for the industry to stay afloat is to change the way it operates.

Progress is being made in the field of online journalism, which is growing a larger following. Although financing has yet to be determined, many journalists recognize the Internet as a medium that can save their profession.

Another form of rescue could certainly come in the form of comedy. For the media to serve the people, they need to provide them with information they’d like to know–but they also need to deliver that information in a palatable form.

For many cynics, humor can provide necessary information that they would otherwise ignore.

Whether the absence of Richardson’s beard is necessary information is up for debate. But hey, I watched the clip and I knew it would be enjoyable.

Increasing an audience through comedy is a good start for any media outlet.

Click to watch the interview

Gibson was frank at times, addressing the criticism of the Bush administration and asking if the president would have done anything differently.

“I don’t know,” said Bush. ”The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.”

Gibson then asked Bush if the war in Iraq would have happened, had intelligence been correct.  Bush sidestepped the question, “It’s hard for me to speculate.”

What was clear throughout the interview was Bush’s acknowledgement that his presidency was laden with criticism and flaws. At the beginning of the interview, Bush admitted that he had been unprepared for war when he took office.

The two discussed public opinion of him, to which Bush appeared too have little concern.

“I’ll be frank with you,” he said. ”I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it — but, look, in this job you just do what you can.”

His words hinted at the controversy surrounding his policy; a Republican president, continuing to govern from the far right, despite public opposition.

Bush spoke with proudly about never compromising his morals. He served the presidency the way he saw fit.

Bush’s interview reaffirms what 72 percent (the latest polls show a 28 percent approval rating for Bush) of Americans believe: Bush isn’t leading the country in the right direction.

It seems that although the public is unsatisfied with his administration, Bush has no qualms about his presidency. “The thing that’s important for me is to get home and look in that mirror and say, I did not compromise my principles,” he said. 

When asked what his plans were after moving out of the White House, Bush and his wife Laura said they would like to stay involved in global issues like malaria. He would also like to write a book.

According to the New York Times, writers who have worked closely with Murdoch have confirmed that he works closely with reporters, instructing them to slant political stories to his taste, although some execs argue otherwise.

The Post has a reputation of conservative news coverage. This election season, its editorials and opinion columns endorsed McCain, but the news coverage remained fair and balanced. When it appeared that Obama was on the brink of victory, coverage started to slant in Obama’s direction.

After the election, the Post had a 12-page special edition about Obama, centerfold glamour shot included. Author Micheal Wolff, who is writing a book about Murdoch, believes he began publishing more news about Obama because he knew it would sell more newspapers.

Murdoch is a media mogul. He is also the owner of numerous media outlets, including Fox News Channel, which provided notably conservative political coverage during the election season.

Those close to Murdoch say that each media outlet has a different style. According to Wolff, the New York Post is the best reflection of Murdoch and his political opinion.

If that’s true, then did Rupert Murdoch just become a democrat?

TechPresident makes the reasonable argument that the Internet should remain a space where the free market can flourish, which will allow for competition and innovation. It presents a sound, democratic argument, but I can’t help but wonder what dangers may be lurking…

On the previous two pages, I discussed how techPresident wants to deem the Internet a public good and make it available to everyone. If Internet service providers refuse to discriminate websites based on content, it’s likely that families will encounter some trouble.

“Net Neutrality” will allow children to stumble across disturbing and inappropriate websites that their parents would be shocked to see. If Internet service providers to implement safeguards the prevent access to these websites, it would but irresponsible to declare the Internet a public good.

I agree that Internet service providers shouldn’t soly direct users toward content that benefits their company, but what techPresident seems to habitually overlook is the fact that the Internet isn’t completely beneficial.

In some cases, it can inflict harm. Until safeguards are put in place that prevent young users from finding pornography, violent content, or other unsavory websites, the Internet cannot be declared a public good.

Net Neutrality can only exist if percentage and demographic of Internet users does not increase. Net Neutrality is feasible for an American society with limited Internet access, because people paying for the Internet should be able choose the content they prefer.

If Internet access becomes available to all Americans for little or no cost, children will be able to access the Internet at any time, in any place. Parents won’t be able to the supervise, so the Internet must supervise for them by safeguarding content with passwords, logic questions and other hurdles.

But the days of avoiding the paparazzi must seem like a distant dream. Now the Obama team has bigger fish to fry. The Secret Serviceis faced with the daunting task of shielding “Renegade” (Obama’s code name), a man who just may be the most popular person in the world.

Friday’s New York Times reported that Obama can no longer visit his Chicago based barber shop. A few weeks ago, Obama went to his barber for a trim. Now his barber must come to him, as the shop is lined with windows that present a safety hazard for the next commander in chief.

Reports of violence have already erupted across the country, following the election of Obama. From crosses being burned to a child chanting “assassinate Obama” on a school buss, it’s evident that racism still exists in the United States.

Obama flanked by his Secret Service

Turbulent race relations indicate that Obama’s Secret Service have an unprecedentedly difficult task ahead of them. His men will be in charge of fending off the media, as well as potentially threatening racist citizens. They’ll be forced to prepare for dangerous situations, putting their lives on the line every day.

The world community depends on Obama to lead the United States in a new direction, while demonstrating that racial equality is possible. During the next four years, the Secret Service needs to ensure that the ideal can be achieved by working harder than any Secret Service ever has.

McCain and Salter

In today’s Daily Beast, Salter delivers an eloquent story of McCain’s candidacy and offers feasible reasons for McCain’s defeat. Artfully woven throughout the story are hints that the media played a significant role in Obama’s victory.

Salter addresses all of the presumed missteps of McCain’s campaign–from his seemingly hastey selection of a running mate to the “suspension” of his campaign to address the financial crisis. He also offers solid reasoning for why those decisions were made (Palin has a record of reformand in early October, economic adviser’s deemed it necessary that a rescue package be passed).

Salter harped on the immense respect he and the rest of the campaign team held for McCain. McCain had a solid record as a reformer who challenged his party. Salter makes the argument that, had McCain not been a Republican candidate, he would be president elect.

His association to Bush, however small it may be, ultimately cost McCain the election. The Democratic message of change brought Obama a victory in a country plagued by an unpopular war in Iraq and a financial crisis that could be chalked up Republican, deregulatory policy.

Salter laments that his American hero lost an election. He believes McCain would have proudly and properly served the American public.

But strewn across the text, sometimes in boldface type, are hints that if left up to the American public McCain would have won. Salter makes the not-so-subtle suggestion that the media influenced the decisions of countless voters. 

These two sentences were written in large font between paragraphs:

“I often had the feeling that reporters were motivated by a well-intentioned desire to help America prove that we had overcome racial bigotry.”

“It seemed to us there were more investigative stories about our candidate’s spouse than about Senator Obama.”

Whether or not the stereotyped “liberal media” changed the outcome of the election is still up for debate. But it’s unlikely biased criticism will ever disappear from the news. How else would politicians spread their message?

New Jersey voters casting their ballots

What’s this? The 2008 presidential election wasn’t a record breaking election? Voter turnout mirrored the 2004 presidential election voter turnout? I feel like such a fool–a fool to believe this time would be different.

All the news outlets told me this would be won for the record books… USA Today warned against a shortage of voting booths, Newsweek predicted a massive number of voters, even the AP got my hopes up.

But today’s New York Timesreported that despite the high expectation, voter turnout was disappointingly average.

The Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University conducted a study that although the number of Democrats voting was up 2.6 percent since 2004, the number of Republicans voting was down 1.3 percent.

The study projected that 60.7 percent- 61.7 percent of all eligible voters turned out for the 2008 election. If the number of voters ends up surpassing the 61 percent mark, than the election would have the highest voter turnout since 1964.

High voter turnout is all well and good, but I’m still a little disappointed. By all accounts, this was an historic election that will reshape America. An above-average voter turnout is like getting a B. Your GPA doesn’t suffer, but you know you could have done better.

Legend has it the every time the Redskins win a game before a presidential election, the incumbent party’s candidate wins. Every time the Redskins lose a game before a presidential election, the incumbent party’s candidate loses.

As a steadfast Eagles fan, I have an invested interest in watching other NFC East teams suffer. As a college student, hungry for a heaping helping of change, I’d enjoy seeing the incumbent party’s defeat. No competing interests here, a Redskins loss is a win-win for me.

So just how reliable are the Redskins as political soothsayers? 94% accurate, although some statisticians argue that they’re 100 percent accurate, if you follow the popular vote.

Since Americans still aren’t savvy enough to be trusted with the popular vote, we’ll use the electoral college as the deciding factor.

Redskins games have determined which candidate would win in every election since 1940, when a win against the Boston Yanks predicted Harry Truman’s win.

In 2004, the Redskins lost, but Bush stayed in the White House. Some statisticians chalk the inaccurate prediction up Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000. If Gore had won the presidency, Kerry would have been a losing incumbent in ’04, which would have matched a Redskins loss. 

But what these statisticians who put 100 percent faith in the Redskins didn’t account for is that if Gore had won, the Skins loss would have predicted wrong in 2000.

Either way, they’re 94 percent accurate, predicting 16 out of 17 presidential elections, which is pretty impressive… for the Redskins.

Well, now the Daily Beast gives you the best of both worlds. Highlights from television news and talk shows, condensed and conveniently accessible on the web:

It’s the Video Cheat Sheet, and it splices together the best video clips of the day, delivering the news in a matter of minutes.

The integration of mainstream media and interactive online media provides viewers with the best of both worlds. Even though what’s “newsworthy” can be subjective, The Daily Beast has done a good job maintaining a sharp, succinct tone. The clips used reflect that style.

Scanning the “objective” news headlines on the Fox News homepage, I found this little gem sitting right near the top of the page: “Obama’s Aunt Found Living in Rundown Boston Neighborhood”

Obama's Aunt Leaving her Home

“Hmm..” I pondered to myself as I clicked on the link, “I wonder how the discovery of a homeless Aunt will affect Obama’s campaign?”

As I read through the article, I quickly learned that Obama’s Aunt was not homeless. In fact, she lives in a public housing estate in South Boston.

My thought process shifted gears. Recalling the headline, I wondered if this Aunt was some secret relative. Perhaps she’s family member that might be damaging to the campaign? She must be someone Obama needs to keep hidden.

The next sentence referred to her as, “Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Obama’s best-selling memoir “Dreams From My Father.”

My keen instincts had failed me, yet again.

As the article continued to describe her “modest circumstances,” comparisons were drawn to the fact that Obama graduated from nearby Harvard.

Reading the final sentences of the story, I was still searching for a newsworthy nugget when I realized, this isn’t news–at all. The simple fact that she lives in modest circumstances, like many other immigrants living in Boston, seems to be the only reason Fox ran this story.

Now, I realize Fox wasn’t the only news outlet to run this story, but most of the media didn’t place must emphasis on the story. And they didn’t try to spin her coinciding endorsement of her nephew into a story of neglect on Obama’s part.

In my last post, I made reference to the public’s criticism of liberal media. I’d like to know how Fox News fits into the equation. How do conservatives who voice their criticism of the media regard Fox News? Is their message welcome? Or is it regarded as more biased news coverage?