Print This Post Print This Post

Oh yeah? Well I never.

Why this stuff comes in minutes before I should have been in bed, I don’t know – I’ll try to do more tomorrow but I suspect that the news from this study will be all over the place by the a.m. I’m cherry-picking for now and I have the full study in a pdf but I’m not looking at it tonight.

Here are the cherries:

In the study released today, Brodeur and partner Marketwire dug deeper to discern whether the influence of social media on traditional news delivery was viewed by journalists as being positive or negative.

“The results suggest that journalists have a love/hate relationship with new media,” said Jerry Johnson, executive vice president, Brodeur Strategies.

Nothing we haven’t tasted before.

Deeper in:

According to the study over half of all reporters from all beats said social media and blogs are having a positive influence on the editorial direction of reporting.  Reporters were also overwhelmingly positive on the influence of social media and blogs on the diversity of reporting with approximately 4 in 5 reporters indicating a positive influence.  However, views on tone, quality and accuracy varied by beat.

Well over two-thirds of political reporters (77%) and half of lifestyle reporters (53%) felt that social media had a negative impact on the tone of coverage in their area.  Health care, travel and technology reporters were more likely to say that social media had a net positive impact on the tone of coverage in their area.

Hmm – really?

And finally:


The survey also asked reporters to rank some of the most popular social media news sites in their respective field.  Overall, the survey results suggested that in areas such as politics and technology, a handful of online news sites are emerging as key media sources.

The results also suggested that some of the sites most frequently visited by journalists are not the sites they believe are most credible when it comes to content.

Of the ten sites tested among political reporters, the most popular were Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, Talking Points Memo, and Daily Kos.  Of the remaining six sites, approximately two-thirds of political reporters said they’d never read them.  When it came to the credibility of content, Huffington Post and Daily Kos topped the list with well over two-thirds of reporters saying their content was very or somewhat credible.  Real Clear Politics and Talking Points Memo scored highest among political journalists in the category of “very credible” content.  Nearly half (46%) and over one-third (39%) said their content was “very credible.”

Not sure what the other blogs were but will check tomorrow.

So, I want to know – did anyone ask those journalist why they don’t cite the blogs from which they get their ideas, huh, yeah, huh, yeah huh?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:44 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Blogging, Media, Politics, Research | 5 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Why on Earth, you may wonder, is Jill writing about the Right Reverend Paul Moore?

First and foremost, because I caught a few minutes of Diane Rehm this morning, when his eldest daughter, Honor, was on. Honor’s latest book was just released and is titled The Bishop’s Daughter: A Memoir:

Paul Moore’s vocation as an Episcopal priest took him—with his wife Jenny and a family that grew to nine children—from robber-baron wealth to work among the urban poor of postwar America, prominence as an activist bishop in Washington during the Johnson years, leadership in the civil rights and peace movements, and two decades as the bishop of New York. The Bishop’s Daughter is a daughter’s story of that complex, visionary man: a chronicle of her turbulent relationship with a father who struggled privately with his sexuality while she openly explored hers, and a searching account of the consequences of sexual secrets [Reverend Moore was bisexual]. With a depth of questioning that recalls James Carroll’s An American Requiem, this memoir engages the reader in the great issues of American life: war, race, family, sexuality, and faith. 22 photographs.

Honor’s writing is beautiful, as done here in a New Yorker piece about her father.

So, umm, why would Jill – whom we all know and love to be Jewish, have something to say about these people or this book?

Well, as it just so happens, as I’ve mentioned a few times, I worked in the Yale Development Office from 1985-1988.  And my first job in that office was in Major Gifts Research.  There were four of us in Major Gifts Research, and we used to compile and compose very detailed biographical, historical, personal and financial work-ups of potential donors and past donors to whom the program directors might return for, you know, more donations.

The Right Reverend Paul Moore and his family was one of my assignments.

I remember basically nothing from all the work I must have done to complete his portfolio.  But what stood out for me were these things:

The title of “Right Reverend.”*  Sure, I’d gone to a Catholic university and my best friends really were Episcopal, Unitarian and Catholic, but I didn’t know a reverend from a minister from a priest.  I’m not sure I do now either.

So I remember very well how, when I got handed this assignment, I knew I was at Yale, where there are lots and lots of Protestants.  But I didn’t really know how to ask about what a “right reverend” was.  And, when I did finally get up the guts to ask – you know what? No one could really explain it to me.  I actually thought that Father Moore was the Very Right Reverend – but I’m not sure why.

I also remember reading about all his children, some of whom I believe may have actually been at Yale at that time or about to be at Yale.  And I remember the names – like Honor – being very foreign to me.  I remember they were in New York – or at least he was in New York.

And that’s about all I remember.   And I haven’t thought of Father Moore much in the last 23 years.

Until today. I don’t know that I will read the book that Honor has written, but if it’s anywhere near as well written as the New Yorker piece, it would certainly be worth the time just for the writing alone.  The New York Times reviews it here.

*From this entry for the word “Reverend” in Wikipedia, under “Anglican Churches”:  “Abbesses, abbots and bishops are styled as “the Right Reverend”"

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:31 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Gender, Religion | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

This New York Times’ article says that some conservatives are squawking about journalists going to campaigns but seriously, if Tony Snow went to the Bush White House, they’re kidding, right?

And, in the reverse, if we dial up the way-back machine to Wide Open, how is she able to have had an entire career in and out of political involvement and be trusted, but for the pittance of pay that four independent bloggers received, the Plain Dealer felt that there was too much chance that we’d besmirch their reputation with even the appearance of bias?

From the Times:

The so-called revolving door between journalism and campaigns has been drawing increasing attention. Before joining The National Journal, Ms. Douglass had worked for decades in television news, starting at network affiliates in Los Angeles and becoming a Washington correspondent at CBS News and then, until 2006, at ABC News, where she covered Capitol Hill.

There, Ms. Douglass covered Mr. Obama’s entering the Senate, appearing on ABC the night he won election in 2004 to predict, “He’s going to be received by the Democrats as a conquering hero.”

She added that he would be a potential presidential candidate. Ms. Douglass said she got to know Mr. Obama after he took his seat.

“I watched him when he came to the Senate,” she said. “I thought he was very impressive and I contacted the staff and said I wanted to meet him.”

Ms. Douglass said she maintained contact with his team after she left ABC News in 2006 to study partisan gridlock at New York University and, later, when she had a journalism fellowship at Harvard.

At Harvard in April 2007, she said, she attended two days of debate preparation with Mr. Obama, helping him anticipate questions he might face at a coming debate.

Ms. Douglass said she agreed to help only because she was not working as a journalist and did not expect to return to the business. She said she was enticed to join as a contributor to The National Journal that June because she was excited by the campaign and respected the magazine’s approach to politics. She said she told direct supervisors there about her involvement in the debate preparation.

The editor of the magazine, Charles Green, said Ms. Douglass never pulled her punches or showed favoritism.

“I have no qualms about the journalism she did for us,” Mr. Green said. “She’s a pro.”

Some things just never will make sense.

Here’s a lengthier piece on Douglass.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:48 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Announcements, Barack Obama, Blogging, Campaigning, Elections, Media, Politics, Wide Open, Writing | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

Laina of Writing is Fighting (cheers that jimi izrael is on her blogroll) posted this entry at BlogHer today.  It examines the Democratic National Committee’s blog credentialing program for its national convention this summer in Denver.

So far, the DNC has credentialed 55 state and territory blogs for the August event (start of kids’ school, including one entering high school, one entering middle school means no chance in hell I am going – didn’t even apply; Ohio Daily Blog is going), but supposedly they will credential more.

From Laina:

As with any type of contest the people who are not selected are bound to be upset, but in this case, especially in this historical election, issues of race, gender and the media’s influence has greatly affected the nomination, it seems as though the DNCC is being a bit wary.

It has been reported that many bloggers, even those who were selected but questioned why some in their blogging community were not have started to ask questions about the DNC selection process. Some feel that there is a bias against those who posted content that is critical of the Democratic party and some feel that the selected bloggers are simply da facto spokespersons for the party. Others wondered why some blogs were picked as according to the blog selection process, the selections were based on readership, Internet ratings and most importantly, posts that centered on the local and state politics where the bloggers reside.

Laina then mentions this article from the Dallas News that comments on the lack of diversity in the first selections:

Democrats consider affirmative action a cornerstone of their national agenda, but some minority bloggers say the party isn’t practicing what it preaches.

Last week, the national Democratic Party announced that 55 online writers had been chosen for the “State Blogger Corps,” to cover the convention in Denver in September.

But some members of the self-titled “afrosphere” — blogs written or published by African Americans — are angry that the “State Blogger Corps” appears to be mostly white, particularly since the party appears poise to nominate a black candidate, Barack Obama, for president.

“OK, folks, black bloggers to the back of the bus,” read the headline on the African American Political Pundit blog.

[Attorney Francis L. Holland] called the list “tremendously embarrassing and harmful to the Democratic Party.” The delay in announcing the minority blogs, he said, is hurting their ability to raise money for travel expenses and get vacation time.

“November’s voter turnout depends on August’s blogger outreach,” said Mr. Holland, a member of a national and international black bloggers’ coalition called “The AfroSpear.” “Blogs address constituencies, and it simply is not possible for blogs that are all-white to effectively reach diverse Democratic constituencies.”

All legitimate concerns. I hope Laina does a follow-up post after the next round of selections is announced, but I’m sure we’ll be hearing about it within a very short time after that announcement is made (I received an e-mail from the DNC last time).

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:45 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Blogging, Democrats, Elections, Gender, Media, Politics, Race, WH2008, Women, Writing | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

There has been an unprecedented amount of back and forth about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John McCain, here, here and here. I’ve written before about how neither Obama or Clinton satisfy me and I’ve meant as much every other time as I mean it now.  I invite supporters of Hillary Clinton to write up ten compelling reasons for people to vote for Clinton and I will post it.

But these ten compelling reasons come from the blog of author Ellen Bravo of Taking on the Big Boys.  I interviewed her last week and I really like her approach to many things.  Bravo is based in reality and keeps her eye on the prize.  Which, as a Democrat, I feel we all must do.  Here are her ten compelling reasons for women to vote for Obama if he is the candidate of the Democratic party for president:

Should Sen. Barack Obama emerge as the Democratic candidate, women have compelling reasons to support his candidacy. Here are my top ten:

10. Nearly half of women voting in the Democratic primaries already support Sen. Obama’s candidacy. CNN compiled exit polling data from all the states that held primaries before West Virginia. Averaging the percentage that each candidate received from women voters in these states, the two Democratic candidates were only three points apart (46.6% for Obama, 49.6% for Clinton). Sen. Obama won the women’s vote in 13 states, compared to 16 for Clinton – and that’s not counting the caucuses where he won decisively, including among women.

9. Support for Sen. Obama among women is not surprising. His stands on issues important to women, from fair pay to reproductive justice to support for paid sick days and paid family leave, are strikingly similar to Sen. Clinton’s. He’ll be not just on the right side but a champion for gender justice. Above all, he has shown his commitment and ability to galvanize grassroots movements – the key to moving our agenda.

8. He has attributed his understanding of gender to the strong women in his life, including his mother, grandmother and wife Michelle. Having been raised by a single mother, he has insights into the lives of those who need food stamps to feed their families or have to choose between seeking health care or paying the rent. As an engaged father he understands the reality of work-life conflicts, but he also sees how these fall disproportionately on women, and how much more difficult they are for women without resources.

7. Our anger at the sexism that emerged in this campaign, from low-life hecklers to high-profile pundits, should stoke our determination but not determine our vote. At the same time, we must all oppose the racism that emerged in both blatant and coded ways and recognize that breaking that glass ceiling is also a blow to the Big Boys, one that weakens them and strengthens us.

6. Women can set an example of unity to build a stronger party that draws on the unprecedented turnout in the primaries among African-Americans, women of all races, young people and others who have too long been left out of political decision-making. Such a coming together will not only power an election victory, but lay the groundwork for significant social change in the coming years.

5. John McCain on the war: Sen. Obama’s early judgment opposing the war in Iraq puts him in an excellent position to take on John McCain, who has not only supported the war from its onset but professed to having no problem should troops remain in Iraq for 100 years. Women can’t afford a president who thinks “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” is a stance to brag about.

4. John McCain on the right to abortion: not only does he oppose it, he’s pledged to fill any Supreme Court vacancies with justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

3. John McCain on health care: McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years. His health plan provides $2 billion in tax cuts to the top ten health insurance companies, while allowing those companies to exclude people with pre-existing conditions.

2. John McCain on valuing families: When Congress was considering the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, McCain voted to suspend it unless the federal government certified that compliance wouldn’t increase business expenses or gave employers financial assistance to cover any costs. He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and campaigned for an Arizona constitutional amendment banning any legal recognition to gay couples.

1. John McCain on fair pay: He opposes the Fair Pay Restoration Act on the grounds that it will create too many lawsuits (this is like opposing OSHA inspections on the grounds that too many violations will be found). He also opposed raising the minimum wage and safeguarding overtime rights.

And did I mention John McCain?

Those of us who have been supporting Obama welcome the passionate, hard-working supporters of Sen. Clinton – as we will support her should the campaign turn out differently than expected. Every woman angry at the way in which gender discrimination has robbed our pay, crimped our opportunities, devalued our work in the labor force and in the home, minimized our pain and trivialized the barriers we face, now has a great opportunity to determine the outcome of this election. We also have a great responsibility, to ourselves and the women who follow.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:01 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Media, Politics, Social Issues, Voting, Women | 34 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

I remember his name and his youth. I was pretty young in 1976 too. But Hamilton Jordan died this week at only age 63. Here’s the AP story on it but here’s a more touching remembrance from The Swampland’s Joe Klein:

The first cover story I wrote for Rolling Stone Magazine, back before the dawn of time, was about Jimmy Carter’s top two, very young aides, Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell–who posed as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for the cover shot. It was the worst-selling Rolling Stone cover of the 1970s, but it launched what now can be described as my lifelong friendship with Hamilton and his good friend and deputy, Jay Beck.

An extraordinary thing happened during the days that Jordan allowed me to spend with him in his west wing office: His mother called to tell Hamilton that his father was dying of cancer. He began to cry uncontrollably, and then he explained to me that cancer was rampant in his family–and that his greatest fear was that he would die that way, too. He asked me to leave the crying off the record, which I did…until now. He lived a life of real courage, with a death sentence hanging over him ever step of the way, and he devoted much of his time and energy to raising money for and running a summer camp for children with cancer. He’ll also be remembered as a demon strategist, the guy who, in his early twenties, wrote The memo that described the strategy by which Jimmy Carter could be, and was, elected President.

But I’ll mostly remember him as a natural born rebel whose favorite song was Bob Dylan’s “Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll.” His proudest accomplishment, he once told me with a smile, was reaching out all the way to Macon for the entertainment for the Albany, Georgia, High School prom–a fellow named Otis Redding, whom Jordan chaffeured to and from the event.

He grew in office. His memoir about the Iran hostage affair, Crisis, is a great read. I didn’t see Hamilton often in recent years, but I’ll miss him…and extend my condolences to his wife, children and many friends.

And yes, he did die of cancer.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:05 pm May 22nd, 2008 in Announcements, Democrats, Politics, RIP | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

If Alex Castellanos, GOP political strategist, has his way, by the time your daughters run for political office, the word “bitch” will be in the vernacular and taught as a synonym in grade school for “people who are abrasive, aggressive, irritating.” Tell you what Alex, as soon as I hear you call George Bush, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove a bitch, I’ll think about it.

This is why “it’s unpleasant but it happens” is not an acceptable approach to sexism.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:13 am May 22nd, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Media, Republicans, WH2008, Women | 6 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Listen here for yourself.


-Ohio Governor Ted Strickland spoke about the progress yesterday

-There’s a pool of about 40 people

-There’s been no decision to include or exclude any particular individuals

-There’s been no decision whether to appoint someone who won’t run or who will be expected to run to fill out the remainder of the term (through 2010)

-As to Bill Mason, the clip reports that Strickland said that “it would be unreasonable to conclude” that Mason won’t be in the pool

-Lee Fisher will stay where he is unless he asks Strickland to be appointed in which case Strickland reportedly said that it would be difficult not to appoint Fisher

-the Ohio Republican Party has formed a 26 member screening committee, that includes Rob Frost and Betty Montgomery; it will select the individual who will run in November for the Attorney General position’s remaining term

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:00 am May 22nd, 2008 in Government, Marc Dann, Ohio, Politics, Ted Strickland | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Lisa Renee had the job this week of editing the Carnival submissions and came up with a great image to represent not only our 118th Carnival of Ohio Politics but also passage into a new phase of life for her and her daughter.  Congrats to both.

Enjoy the pickings – never a dull moment in Ohio.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:10 am May 22nd, 2008 in Carnivals, Ohio, Politics | Comments Off