Elections for the San Juan mayor were held yesterday, but I have no idea who won. Strange, right? As loud and full of parades and Sandanista flags and trucks as the streets were in the weeks leading up to the elections here, that's how quiet it seems now. Elections were yesterday; laws forbade alcohol sales from Saturday night to last night. Quite the opposite of the election traditions in the States!
I did not vote this year. Honestly, I don't know for whom I would've voted, anyway. Socially, I'm 100% behind Obama's policies protecting women's privacy, supporting gay rights, etc. but economically... From what I've been reading, I feel like the recovery is too slow, to put it simply. Yeah, jobs are cropping up, but the numbers are less than what economists predicted. And a lot of liberal economists talk about how government debt doesn't actually matter. It doesn't affect anything in real terms. I don't buy that.
Monday, November 5, 2012
More tidbits
This post, from Neiman Journalism Lab, makes a case for more public-minded journalism. Well, duh. It describes the horse-race, simplistic two-sided paradigm that characterizes most news stories in America, and calls for at least MORE stories to "move on" from that model. The post argues that objective journalism is somewhat outdated, and the "left-right dance" should be exchanged for a focus on change for the community - better education, health services, blah blah. Okay, sounds like a great idea. But when you're a publicly-minded reporter writing about how to improve health care, what is going to get that story on the front page? Something interesting and credible. Conflict is interesting; people with titles are credible. Remember, you're writing for an audience, one that's inundated with media and you have about three sentences to grab its attention. This means academics who disagree, politicians who disagree, people affected by the issue - who disagree. And we're back to dancing on strings from the left and right, because the story has to be understandable, too. It's a giant systemic problem, not one originating solely from news organizations or reporters or audiences. I, for one, have no idea how to change that paradigm for the mainstream.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NiemanJournalismLab/~3/Bt2urM5uwFM/
More tidbits
This post, from Neiman Journalism Lab, makes a case for more public-minded journalism. Well, duh. It describes the horse-race, simplistic two-sided paradigm that characterizes most news stories in America, and calls for at least MORE stories to "move on" from that model. The post argues that objective journalism is somewhat outdated, and the "left-right dance" should be exchanged for a focus on change for the community - better education, health services, blah blah. Okay, sounds like a great idea. But when you're a publicly-minded reporter writing about how to improve health care, what is going to get that story on the front page? Something interesting and credible. Conflict is interesting; people with titles are credible. Remember, you're writing for an audience, one that's inundated with media and you have about three sentences to grab its attention. This means academics who disagree, politicians who disagree, people affected by the issue - who disagree. And we're back to dancing on strings from the left and right, because the story has to be understandable, too. It's a giant systemic problem, not one originating solely from news organizations or reporters or audiences. I, for one, have no idea how to change that paradigm for the mainstream.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NiemanJournalismLab/~3/Bt2urM5uwFM/
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Fun tidbits
This is about the NYT article that revealed the insane amount of money China's prime minister has been able to make through insider dealings between the Communist Party and business in the country, and what that means for the government's future.
This one's would interest you, Dad. And all those people who wonder (like I did for a long time) why the US couldn't have lavish social services on its citizens like Sweden can do without going bankrupt... Guess what! Sweden is able to do that BECAUSE the United States isn't as "cuddly" (their word, not mine). Americans innovate because of our cutthroat capitalism; other countries benefit.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132939
That's all for now, folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)