April 15, 2010

Trends in the Tea Party

So the Tea Party has been making noise for a while but up until now, no one has studied them or tried to figure out who they were. It turns out that my suspicions are more correct than I thought. The Tea Party is full of older white Americans who are angry about their level of influence waning. They see America changing and feel that it's their way or the highway.

The New York Times has some great stuff from a recent poll and some video blogging that highlights this. For those of you who don't like or trust statistics, I think the poll was conducted fairly well (I do this stuff professionally). What's more jarring is that when you look at the faces, not one of them is different. They're all older and white. Even their haircuts (across gender too) are similar!

When I read the poll article I'm more convinced that this is a group that dislikes the idea of helping anyone. I'm more convinced that there is some latent racism present. It's old thinking that deserves to go away. It's fear that tries to hide behind the Constitution (which they clearly don't understand) and name calling. It's sad really.

After eight years in power we've all seen that the ideas the Right tried out didn't work. Their foreign policy, their economic policy, their environmental policy are all failures. They're responsible for the economic crisis we're in. It's time for a change. Even if you don't like Obama's policies, we need to do something else. The recent past was a disaster.

January 20, 2010

Lots of Chatter but What to Say?

As a blogger, I often have aspirations of writing more and better stuff. In the past I've written about stuff that bugs me, sports, a little about travel, pop culture, etc. To be honest, most of my blogging projects fail for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes I get bored with a topic and move on. Sometimes I'm distracted by, well, life. As a writer, each of my blogs is one of my babies. While none of them have generated any kind of readership, I still look back on each of them with a little bit of protectionism. I like the idea of them.

This blog has been a lot more casual and agnostic (partly due to the ease of posting) and in some ways more successful. Despite that, I still often find myself asking, what on Earth should I write about? It seems to me this is a common thread in online writing (even when the author doesn't really think it on a conscious level).

So why do I bring this up now in my 89th post? Well, I was thinking about quality writing today in response to the New York Times' decision to begin charging for access to its website in 2011. A lot of people online were angry about it. Some of the comments I read (and I am paraphrasing) included thoughts such as:

I hope the NY Times fails
I'll get my news elsewhere
You're dumb
I'm mad and I hate the NY Times

It seems this decision just made the internet unhappy. Personally, I found myself thinking it was a good decision (and I'm cheap). Why? Well, the New York Times puts out some of the best content in the world. From straight news, to honest reporting, to up to the second blogs covering everything from baseball to books. The organization puts out an incredible amount of information and content. Additionally, this content is reliable. They're not going to publish something stupid like, "Phyllis Diller named Secretary General of the UN." Why not? Because they are stocked with professionals who pay attention to what they do. How good are their people? A handful of them have started examining the Times and its practices to make sure that the organization upholds its own ethics. Really! Check them out on Twitter @NYTPicker.

So why do they do this? It's not because they're bored. These people all have homes and families and like to eat and buy things. It's a job, just like yours or mine. The Times needs to be able to pay for its reporters, pay for its offices, and pay to send objective reporters to the far reaches of the globe. In order to do so, it needs money. As more and more news sources evaporate it means that fewer eyes are observing for us. Fewer voices are discussing events. Consumers get crappier and crappier information. Sure, you could go to CNN.com for your free news and get as many stories about John Mayer banging actresses as you would about the Senate election in Massachusetts.

Good information is worth paying for. Good news is worth paying for. Free isn't always bad, but eventually news that is driven by advertising is going to be more interested in getting eyeballs than it will be in getting the facts right. That's never good.