Author: David Perlmutter

Prompted by a discussion of privacy on social networking sites, I recently reviewed my Facebook page to see what could be used against me if I ran for political office. I stopped counting after I (quickly) found 10 things – pictures, wall posts, etc. – that could be used in a negative political ad. With respect to my bid, it'd behoove me to remove self-posted pictures depicting tomfoolery because of how bloggers, and in turn the mainstream media, could use them against me. As Dr. David Perlmutter talked about in a recent radio interview , politics is becoming an increasingly unattractive profession due to attacks via new media. I agree – though I'd slightly modify that idea: Politics is an unattractive profession because it has, what seems, forever been an ugly business; as a politician, one's chances of being mocked, hated and vilified are absolute New media just provide new ways to open yourself to more salacious (i.e., untrue or trivial) attacks. So, as evidenced in...

In today’s fast-moving media environment, there is no traditional news cycle akin to what existed before the advent of the Internet and cable news. According to a CBS News article, news publication is almost instantaneous, and is quickly followed by pundit discussions and analyses. The instantaneous news cycle now makes vilification much quicker than in previous generations. For example, on a recent edition of the Up To Dateradio show, Dr. David Perlmutter mentioned that immediately after Governor Sarah Palin was announced to be John McCain’s running mate, blogs were writing salacious things about Palin’s family. On the show, Perlmutter argued talented and qualified individuals might not run for political offices for fear of having skeletons in their closets instantly exposed. That statement possesses merit. However, there are shades of gray within the argument. Therefore, it is difficult to properly be able to completely agree or completely disagree with the statement. In the early years of the United States’ life, newspaper articles were rife with...

Toxic Technology During a recent radio talk show segment on media issues, David Perlmutter, a guest on the show, a journalism professor at the University of Kansas and the moderator of this blog, posed this question: Are attacks and vilifications of public officials on blogs and other forms of new media making would-be politicians reluctant to enter the field? Arriving at a definitive, fact-based answer to that question seems difficult at best. Would the people who say they were stopped from pursuing political careers by fear of noxious bloggers really have pursued them otherwise? I suspect most people who go into politics have the chutzpah to stand up to the fear of being slandered. Values, platforms and world views may serve as guidance systems in political careers, but wide, hard competitive streaks fuel the campaigns. Politicians, like soldiers and professional sports figures, are risk takers; the adrenaline rush of pursuit blunts the pain of small injuries. Poisoned Pens The part of the talk show I found most...

When someone decides to run for public office what is to be expected? Personally, if I ran for office I would want some attention from the newspapers, radio, and news stations in the form of interviews.   And if I was smart, I would contact all the people I did something wrong to and buy them off and make them sign a contract not to disclose anything unless they want a lawsuit.  In this article titled “Should you run for public office?” they suggest if you do have skeletons in your closet be prepared for your life to be dissected for the world to see. Now, I don’t think I have done that much, but who knows who remembers what? Someone might have some crazy picture of me in my undergrad years, thank heavens, there wasn’t much digital cameras! I would however be at the mercy of a certain photographer in Kansas City who tends to photograph every race I ever ran in the...

As the third oldest profession in the world, politics is considered to lose its attraction gradually especially to the young people who grew up in the new media generation. In my opinion, the reason partly lies in the over exposure to the public including privacy life traced by the new media hidden in everywhere as a politician. The open platform built by the new media technology draws more attention and interactive passion from the public than the traditional media as well as it brings more attacks and vilification to the politicians. New media made a whole new political communication environment. The proliferation of media outlets as well as the breakdown of old restraints in both media and politics, plays an inescapable role in U.S. domestic politics, helping to shape agendas and create (or destroy) politicians. In Washington, one of the greatest divides amongst the young and old is whether or not new technologies are viewed as positive or negative additions to...

After Congress failed to pass a $700 billion economic bailout package, to which the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 777 points in reaction(resulting in the disappearance of an estimated $1.2 trillion in capital), one would think there'd be plenty of analysis on what this means to Americans. There was plenty of analysis out there – if you knew where to look for it (RealClearMarkets.com, like its sister site RealClearPolitics.com, rounds up a variety of market news coverage). But demand for explanation cooled after the market bounced back: The Dow posted the third-highest one-day point gain in history by jumping 485 points; the rise was presumed to be from investor confidence that the House will pass a revised bill later this week. Interested in finding out what the top headlines were after the roller coaster of a news day, I was surprised what stories were churning in the blogosphere's popular political sites. Some featured headlines sum it up: "Fingerpointing continues on bailout failure" (Townhall.com) "It's your fault, Stupid" (The DailyKos) "Poll: GOP blamed for failed bailout" (Politico.com) Bloggers...

If you log onto any media, blog or social networking site you find it completely dominated by two things: Presidential politics and the economy. Now the further is engrossed in the economy so it boils down to one idea, everyone is talking, thinking and worried about the economy. What’s changed is how the media is covering the issue. Traditionally the media picks the topic, brings in an expert, brings in someone to counter the expert and goes from there. While the media claims to be unbiased, there is agenda setting going on and there is a slight biased one way or another. The interesting thing is how that is changing with what cnn.com calls “ireporters.” Anyone can post a story or chime in with their opinion or expertise. Now there will be differing opinions but the reader/viewer can watch what they want to whether it only supports one view or not. Additionally more opinions can be shared. Think about it, the media...