WRITING CULTURE 2012: Film, Food & Beyond

Social Media on Election night was abuzz with everyone who’s anyone’s opinionated stance on what should happen, what is happening, and who should be the next President of the United States.  Some of the commentary a little more entertaining than others, with entertainers such as Kathy Griffin cracking jokes on her twitter feed, and Presidential mocker Donald Trump spewing words of disdain for the Democrats; it makes for an entertaining, as well as informative means of knowing what is going on in the election.
All the news outlets have twitter feeds now; some of them, numerous accounts: CNN News, CNN Election Coverage, and you could replace CNN with Fox or NBC or ABC, or NYtimes, or NYPost – any news outlet imaginable at this point; you can tweet with them.

They each claim to be unbiased; we all know this is really not true, but the NY Times does do a semi-good job at appearing fair, with enough media content for both sides of the parties.

I have to wonder what the election looked like pre-twitter/facebook/television…

These are the moments during an election when the lines are drawn, where you send a message to everyone, friend and foe, and establish your identity going forward. There’s a lot of symbolic value to showings like the Democratic National Convention. But none of that would probably mean much without the right coverage.

The nytimes coverage of the convention is probably one of the most immersive  experience a person can get without actually being there, possibly even more so. Every form of media outlet in every conceptualized version is used, pictures, video, graphs, and of course the printed word. On top of the professional coverage from their staff and analysts the nytimes adds another spin by including social media trackers, getting at the moment response from just about anyone across the political spectrum.

All of this can be overwhelming, I know. Knowing where to begin is probably the hardest part, especially during a live event where updates are constant and oncoming. But the nytimes layout makes it all quite manageable if you take it one step at a time. Each feature is broken down into different segments on the home page, article updates at the forefront, with the Caucus Blog right next to it, providing on site thoughts and analysis from the writers. Under that is the video and slide-show segment, allowing non-viewers to either watch or catch up on memorable moments during the convention, and from there a social media tracker, providing feedback from others through twitter by following the trend tags/topics.

It’s really the total package, getting expert insight, live-feeds to form your own opinion, and being able to follow the reactions of everyone else. This type of interface will be the future model for every large-scale event coverage going forward, so long as they keep it organized, the vast quantity of choices to receive your news will be less daunting and more of a great opportunity for every viewer.

The Caucus Blog is a place where everyone can blog about the political news. Bloggers express their own thoughts about the latest events in politics.

Right after the Democratic National Convention, the wall was filled with a number of blog posts about this event. Bloggers were discussing mostly speeches of the ones who were on stage, the president Obama was discussed more than Romney here simply because it was a Democratic National Convention.

A lot of people get involved into reading (or commenting) the Caucus Blog through Facebook, twitter or Google plus. I think that blogging about political events is a very good idea. You already have pictures, text, and someones opinion, not only just a dry coverage of what happened where and when.

Multimedia features.

It is understandable that New York Times is a professional in presenting multimedia features for their stories. The images they are using are bright, some of them dont even need a description (they speak for themselves), and they are done by professionals. The pictures make the blog more vivid and interesting. The photo slideshow depict the brightest moments of the event, sometimes telling us even more of what happened than if they went together with the text.

Michelle Obama speaking at the DNC

By Sean Creamer

From the first page of the blog, it showed supporters of general democratic ideals weathering out the rain. Cardboard signs were protected by plastic bags and umbrellas as these die-hards showed off their zeal.
Of course your crazies with crosses were present, but for the most part, those who appeared, were there to show their support or disdain for the democratic party.
The photographer, Doug Mills, took an approach where the snapped photos were taken from peculiar angles. One that stuck with me was where a reporter’s legs can be seen through the bow-legged stance that the cameraman has taken. It reminded me of all the work that goes into making events such as this readily available for all who have a connection to some sort of media outlet.
Another shot focusing upon legs is one where a woman is having her snapshot taken in a photo booth.
All-in-all, the lens blog of the democratic convention’s first day seemed to revolve around various players getting ready and it ended with a powerful picture of Michelle Obama, standing tall after her speech as the crowd gives her a standing ovation.

The first photo of the second day of the convention is one that is particularly striking. It shows a young black woman with a sign that displays “yes we can, again.” and next to her is a young man in an Abe Lincoln suit whose sign proclaims “Republicans for Obama.” To see such a cast of characters come together around Obama is astounding. One may usually think that democrats and republicans are beasts who are constantly at war, but one can see that bi-partisan politics does not mean that republicans fully subscribe to Romney and vise versa.
Another photo that struck me was one of technicians cleaning up the stage in preparation for Bill Clinton’s speech. I found their attire to be quite amusing. They themselves looked like speech givers from the angle of the photo taken, but closer inspection reveals that they are cleaning the teleprompter, not reading from it.

Another photo that reached out to me was one of a Michelle Obama Barbie doll. It made me wonder what kind of games one would play with that kind of a doll. Perhaps a mock-up white house with a plastic Will Smith figurine (yes, they exist!!) as Barack.
After a few of these candid shots of people from the convention, the photographer then gets serious, posting a slew of photos from various speeches and of course, Slick Willy’s speech.
The third and final day of the convention blog begins with Obama accepting his nomination as the Democratic party’s representative for the 2012 election. Like Michelle’s photo, this one is taken from behind and above him, which gives a scope to just how many delegates were there supporting the O-man. After that photo, the others reverted back to the “people on the street” mentality.
A man was shown carrying a bundle of commemorative tee-shirts that laud Obama’s nomination. I wonder what would happen to those shirts if another democrat had gotten the nomination out of left field.
Someone would have lost a lot of money and I bet that they would be shipped off to some third world nation where the message of shirt is lost, but the warmth and comfort of clothing is not.

Multimedia Round-Up:
I have never covered an election. I followed the McCain Obama race back in 2008, but I never followed it via the internet. It was interesting to see the various articles and interactive features from the NYTimes coverage of the DNC. While tuning into a televised program may give a viewer their own perspective on what was said, the Multimedia Roundup done by the NYTimes delves much deeper than your ordinary analysis.
One tool created was the “At the National Conventions, the Words they Used.” This device measured what words were most prevalent in every 25,000 words spoken. In simple terms, it means that they tracked issues and recorded how many times either times the republicans or democrats stated it. Jobs was almost an even subject, with democrats speaking about it eight more times than republicans. Another popular phrase was “Obama,” which had been stated over 175 times by democrats and 66 times by republicans. Then of course it is funny to see that words like “faith,” “fail,” “spending,” and several other terms with negative connotations rested on the republican side.
My personal favorite piece was the analysis of Obama’s speech-he references to the fact that the republicans listed all the problems of this nation (as seen in the interactive word search).The journalists who covered the speech did a word-for-word transcription of Obama’s speech and then analyzed it and gave comments on the side while a video would play an actual recording from the day.
Overall, I felt that the coverage of each convention was done very well, so long as one is savvy with the internet. When I had asked my grandfather to take a look at the work of the NYTimes from my laptop, he felt that the clutter was too much for him to even look at. So while we may have ultimate coverage, perhaps it may be better suited for some to just tune in.

As I was looking for a story to focus my blog I became overwhelmed, there was just so much coverage. The Times alone had dozens of slideshows, videos and blogs. Its great publications are taking advantage of the technology available and I think reading a newspaper online is more entertaining than watching TV.
My favorite part of the multimedia coverage was the photo slide shows. Photos capture the moment. They have that iconic quality where one photo can really tell the story.
The slideshows I liked best were from the Republican convention. I thought the RNC slideshows really captured who they are. I also loved the Backstage at the Democratic Convention slide show. The black and white photos were beautiful and presidential. There was one photo of President Obama backstage during Mrs. Obama’s speech that I thought was interesting since I was wondering where he was at the exact moment that photo was taken. Now I know.
I don’t believe it’s possible to have too much coverage of politics. It is important to document events like this and for people to have a choice of how they view news but I think the media should be doing more fact checking and bringing complex issues to the public’s attention. Smaller publications like Pro-Publica and RealClear Politics often offer more in depth reporting.
To me, the most important coverage and my favorite part of reading an interactive newspaper are the readers’ comments. In The New York Times readers can vote for their favorite comments, the best comments rise to the top of the list, and you can read peoples opinion on a story from across the globe.
No matter what type of coverage makes The New York Times, I wonder if it a necessary or important. Hasn’t everybody already made up their mind who they are voting for?

The New York Times’ social media is doing a wonderful job on covering the National Democratic Convention. Facebook has been a great social network for them to present about the Democratic Convention and perceives people’s reaction on it.

In last week, The New York Times mostly posts on facebook about Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and Bill Clinton, Obama  and Mitt Romney’s convention speeches. I think, The New York Times has been successfully using facebook to engage people and to continue breed the social network by people’s participation. And People are responding regularly and enthusiastically on Times’ facebook site, giving their comments on the convention, and most importantly, leaving their opinion in positive and negative both way.

Multimedia “round-up”

I have been always impressed by The New York Times’ multimedia coverage. I feel that they like to provide effective pictures, slideshows and videos to not only in their news paper and online news paper, also in blogs, twitter and facebook. As a consumer, their multimedia coverage is able to tell a story to me by itself. Although most of their multimedia cover on Obama and Democratic Convention, they also provide some coverage on Romney.  

 Source: The New York Times

THE CAUCUS BLOG

The Caucus Blog is all about the latest politics and government news. Every day, bloggers post, update, and inform their readers. As a blog, it is not necessary for the text to be just fact and news. At times, bloggers would voice their own opinions and perspective on these events in their post, and it is very clear that the bloggers are mostly pro-Obama.

Last week, the Caucus Blog was consumed with posts about the events from the Democratic National Convention. Bloggers discussed about the convention speakers’ speeches (e.g- Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama), the issues Obama would address if he became president, the issues Romney would address, the candidate who would receive the Latino’s vote, the relocation of Obama’s convention speech and other election matters.

As a news consumer, I found the blog to be interesting and informative, however very one-sided. I would preferred it if the New York Times would do a little more coverage on Romney. Browsing through the blog posts, I noticed that there was an vast amount of posts about Obama. They provided so much information and background on Obama that I think the same courtesy should be extended to Romney as well.

MULTIMEDIA COVERAGE

Politics and I have a rocky relationship. I prefer to work “hands-on” rather than reading, writing, and listening. When it comes to politics, I have yet to find a way to motivate myself to understand politics “hands-on”. However with the multimedia round-up, there is still hope.

The New York Times did a phenomenal job in creating a more efficient and lively way to read and follow the news. What interested me the most was how they deconstructed the candidates’ speeches at the DNC allowing the readers to follow and comprehend them at their own pace. The deconstruction went as far as to showing the candidates’ speech via text and topic order. The New York Times even incorporated tools such as slideshows, videos, and social networks to make the experience more enjoyable. Connecting with social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, gives readers the chance to comment and voice their opinions and views. But my favorite tool of them all, the solution to my “hands-on” politics problem are the interactive features. I find them easy to use, fun to play with, and very helpful.

It seems the election’s heat spilled onto the realm of social media–especially evidently observed in twitter.

I was awed by the technology at first, about the way New York Times organized the multimedia and social media, everything blending well with one another. As soon as you click the button of -The Time’s Political Unit on Social Media, upper right hand corner from the politics section on its site, you will see the opinions of journalists about the currently ongoing election.

Twitter has been amazing in that it allows people to casually bring out and express their opinions on the election and the candidates. The social media has broken down the barrier between election issues and young people, because it is easy to “follow” the election phases, which can make the convention more engaging. I, myself, am honestly not familiar with the social media system. Also, I do not see me as a person who would follow the news on the election. But, mainly due to the convenience and the accessibility, I began to read and follow the comments made by the journalists–all thanks to the social media.

The New York Times reporters were so active posting about Democratic National Convention. From September 4^th through September 6^th, many NY Times reporters seem busy writing posts about democratic candidate’s activities. Due to styles of Twitter, the reporters tend to write short catchy sentences to grab reader’s attention.

Especially, Jodikantor’s writing style caught my eyes. Her writing style demolished the young people’s prejudice of election.

Many young people tend to avoid the election issue but her twitter really entertains the young people within just one sentence. She did not fully explained about the activities but we could just get ideas that she was trying to tell us. It was short but has everything that we needed to know.

The reporters seem to know what they are writing about and the comments are well-written with humor and it has touched me to have more interests in the issues. These reporters would influence reader because we can anticipate that the reporters have more information than we do, and because their comments could influence our thoughts and behaviors. Each one of follower is a voter and we could follow who you want to choose.

REUTERS/JESSICA RINALDI

      OK, I’m not a professional photographer or anything but I know good pictures when I see them and the ones in the photo slide show were subpar at best. I feel the pictures were supposed to be from the viewpoint of those in attendance at the Democratic National Convention. The New York Times wanted you to see the DNC from their eyes and if that’s the case the DNC looked boring as hell. Now don’t get me wrong, some photos were very powerful but some were poorly taken and made me feel like I was with some of the attendees bored as hell in Charlotte waiting for something fun to happen. I looked through the photos slideshow for each of the days of the DNC and decided to let you know about one Hit which was a memorable photo and one miss which was a memorable photo because it sucked.
DNC Day #1: Hit of the day is picture #23 showing Michelle Obama being greeted by a cheering crowd at the convention. The MISS of the day in that slide show was picture#4 which was a very amateur picture of a reporter’s legs with the caption “A television reporter broadcast from a spot on the convention floor”. The pic really looks like a 2 year old took it, and who knows, maybe one really did.
DNC Day #2: HIT of the day was a very provocative picture, it was picture #3 and let’s just say that there is a shadow that resembles a part of the males anatomy that rhymes with Venus (don’t believe me go check for yourself and post a comment and tell me if I’m right or wrong). The MISS of that slide show is the picture of Nancy Pelosi standing at the podium. Now the reason that it’s a MISS is because you don’t even know its Nancy Pelosi because all you see is her shadow and the bottom of her pants (real nice photography work).
DNC Day #3: The pics were pretty good, but of course there has to be a MISS (no slide show is perfect, except maybe mine but that’s another story). The hit for this one would have to be picture #27 which shows President Obama, the first lady and their two daughters. It’s a very beautiful picture that shows family unity and gives you such a warm tingly feeling. Now the MISS of this slide show is #17 which is a pic of Scarlett Johansson, now you may be asking yourself “how the heck can a pic of Sco-Jo be a MISS, everyone loves Sco-Jo”, well the pic only shows the back of her head and I’m not such a fan of hers that I can tell what the back of her head looks like but I’ll take their word that is was her(some of you Johansson fans could probably recognize her bun from anywhere but not me).
The most flawless slide show would have to be the one that showed BEHIND THESCENES OF THE DNC. Now those pictures were definitely professional and what made them stand out was the fact that they were in black and white which gave it a very historic feel. I truly wish whoever took those pics would have taken the pics of the rest of the DNC instead of letting a group of grade-schoolers run wild with their cameras which is what the majority of the pics in the slide show looked like. All in the all the photo slideshow wasn’t impressive and I expected a lot more from a respectable publication like the New York Times. Guess they need to hire some more interns; hope to see the announcement at the Starr Center in Baruch.

MULTIMEDIA ROUNDUP

Well, I will be honest and say that I did not hear any of the speeches of the DNC. Ok, ok, I’m going to be even more honest and say that I didn’t even watch the convention so this Media round up of all the speeches was perfect for a guy like me that wanted to hear what everyone was talking about.  It allowed me to select sections of the speeches that I wanted to hear so that I could act as if I heard the whole speech and really I just heard the juicy parts.  Out of all the social media the times tried to employ during the convention, this was by far the most useful.  I would like the thank the times for allowing a person that chose to watch Netflix on the night of the DNC the opportunity to act as if he watched every speech.  it made me proud to be an American(Insert salute here).

There was a time when I believed Twitter was just going to be some kind of fad, which would eventually die out. I was wrong. Twitter has become a great “news” source for many.  The New York Times took note of this and established a team of forces to cover the republican and democratic convention. Twitter was used as a platform for the masses to opine on the conventions. It became a pool of saturated opinions. Personally, I do not like to be sold on anything; I like to be given the facts and left to draw my own conclusions. The “facts” were presented with a bias undertone. But I guess that’s the point of Twitter to share one’s opinion with others. The problem is, a person who only gets their news from Twitter, may be misguided. The New York Times Twitter convention coverage was a microcosm of commentary newsrooms like CNN or Fox News, a sound bite of the facts, the rest opinion. Overall, journalists did a decent job delivering the information with their 140-character limitation.

The New York Times did an exceptional job with their multimedia “round-up” coverage. It was fairly accessible and it highlighted the key points of the conventions. The slideshow created a great rapport for the Democratic Party.