Benefits of the Internet for Musicians and Fans are Under Threat

by Helen Charles 

This blog post was originally written for the LSE Media Policy Project blog

Former radio music promoter and LSE Alum Helen Charles warns that some of the digital era’s creative and economic benefits are under threat and could be lost if artists and fans are not attentive and involved in policy debates about music and the digital economy.

Back in 2001, when I started working as a radio plugger, we would send music to radio stations for them to add to their playlist and play on-air. By 2008, people were calling stations to request for un-released music. Artists found it easier to make, record and share music through sites like Soundcloud, and I could choose potential music clients based on their popularity on music download sites.  Today new music is being released at an astonishing rate.  But with Google expanding its digital music services and with increased investor pressure for music streaming services like Spotify to go public, artists and fans need to be alert to the possible implications of alliances between powerful technology and music industry interests

These recent developments could mean that artists may lose the benefits that the digital age has accorded to artists, such as lower entry barriers to the music industry, unless their voice is heard in policy debates. 

Old gatekeepers and new income models

Digital technology has thus far managed to erode the power of established industry gatekeepers by creating new and free avenues for fans to access and discover a whole range of music online. It is no wonder then that major music companies assert that copyright infringement is the primary cause of falling music sales.

But a recent Techdirt report argues that overall sales of music have not fallen at all. This claim is backed by data showing that the sector’s total revenue has remained the same, although major labels now take home smaller slices of it. Thus, the real reason for the music industry’s gripes appears to be its decreased control and increased competition for each release it puts out, which means a smaller share for those at the top of the chain. As a report from LSE Media Policy Project previously argued, copyright infringement is only part of the larger package of changes brought by the Internet to the music industry business model.

Over the past decade, more and more artists have been able to sell 100,000 or so records and fill 3,000 seat venues in 30 to40 cities worldwide. These artists make a living without first being played on mainstream radio or having a large record label’s marketing budget.  As Martin Mills of UK indie record label group Beggars said in 2010: “We’ve got a bunch of bands like that, they’re not necessarily seeking stardom or riches.  That’s incredibly healthy.”

One musician who has been recording and touring for decades has remarked that his income has, contrary to the industry’s claims, been on the rise: “I’ve never made any real sum of money off of record sales. Usually the level of sales we see is more about keeping the cycle of pressing/distribution alive so we can make another record and have stuff at the merchandise table.”

He also points out that musicians who haven’t been on the ‘hits’ charts instead set their sights on ticket sales, merchandise and licensing, which depend on exposure: “I have to think that the reason [audiences, especially teenagers] are listening is because they were easily able to check it out in the first place, not because of any marketing but because they heard about it from a friend who shared it with them.”

But this hasn’t stopped music companies from blaming technology and steering policy debate towards involving ISPs and search providers in identifying and punishing suspected copyright infringers.  And while music and technology companies have been odds with each other, a whole generation of music fans was free to discover and purchase without going through the traditional gatekeepers.

Technology & music companies: from argument to alliance?

This situation could change with the recent speculation that Google will soon launch its iTunes rival, Google Music, outside the US.  This follows the search giant’s decision to downgrade websites that have received the highest number of takedown requests from music firms in its search results. This in turn could be detrimental to the artists who benefit more from the exposure they get from allowing people to share and recommend music than from tightly controlled sites favouring major music companies’ releases.

Meanwhile, some emerging artists are having an even harder time getting their music on legal sites where large audiences are found (such as big name streaming sites and digital stores). Those who are successful are often subject to disadvantageous deals.  While the exact terms of each deal are confidential, indie labels and artists at all levels of successes have criticised Spotify for its compensation scheme.  Major music companies have been accused of licensing their entire musical catalogues to digital services, securing a tidy profit for the label while generating very little for their popular artists.

After it was accused of giving independent labels a raw deal for plays on its digital music service, Spotify sought to rectify the issue by leveling its deals with both major and indie labels.  Now both major music companies and Merlin, the body representing independent labels, have a stake in the digital service, meaning they make money both from plays and if applicable, from their business interest in the company.  Good news?  Not necessarily.  If Spotify goes public it is only the labels that will gain.  To ensure fair compensation artists must engage with the way lawmakers are classifying these services and be alert to what changes in the industry may mean for them.

Lack of artist involvement in policy

Very few artists were heard from during the policy debate leading up to the Digital Economy Act, even though their perspective would have helped to shed light on digital economy’s benefits for both artists and fans.  Even now there are still very few artists who come forward with alternative suggestions in the UK discussion despite recent opportunities such as IPO’s Digital Copyright Exchange feasibility studyand related areas of discussion taking place as part of DCMS’s Communications Review.

DCMS’s seminar series could have been an opportunity for artists to be more involved in policy discussion.  Instead, the focus is predominantly on consumer and businesses interests with very little consideration of the impact of these areas on creativity or those who create.  While in the USA organisations such as Future of Music Coalition are championing artists’ voices in related debates, organisations like the Musicians Union and Featured Artists Coalition in the UK have only tend to come forward when asked. Artists and fans need to start joining the debates about the future of copyright, convergence and digital content distribution – whether or not they are invited.

 

 

Uncle Sam needs you to vote!

By Maggie Palin

Yesterday marked the one month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City. Since then more than 950 protests have been held in more than 80 countries – including many in places where there are no financial centers.

Many have compared the Occupy movement to last year’s Tea Party movement, as both were formed to show one’s disapproval of the status quo. The Occupy movement began as a way for individuals to express their frustration at those in the financial sector who they believed helped the economy descend into a freefall over the past few years, while the Tea Party movement began as a reaction to the policies and legislation of the Democratic-led Congress and White House in Washington. But that is where the similarities end.

The Tea Party movement included rallies of various shapes and sizes, but they did not make up the core of the operation. When they did rally, the Tea Party members would usually coalesce for a few hours to make their point, usually on a day of significance, such as 9/12, outside of a legislative office. Instead, the focus of the Tea Party movement revolved around the good old ballot box. The Tea Party drafted candidates for Congress that eschewed their principles and worked hard to elect them to office, and which resulted in the Republican party flipping the House and nearly taking back the Senate last November. They were participating in the Democratic process much in the same way that the Athenians did over 2,000 years ago.

Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots, however, highlight the dirty side of peacefully assembling – literally! Participants are sleeping in city parks and sidewalks picketing and creating public havoc. By camping out the protestors are costing these already financially-strapped cities thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, in policing fees and clean up (that is, when the city is able to clean up from the protests). Many of them are recent college grads who have not had much luck in finding a job and find themselves laden in debt, and rather than spending their time churning out job applications – like the rest of us did – they are blaming others for their problems and doing little to try to fix them. And now that the Democratic party and major unions such as the AFL-CIO are fully supporting the movement has shifted from a wakeup call to Wall Street to a cry for Marxism with no end in sight.

I am not endorsing the principles of one movement over the other, and I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the right to peaceably assemble. But if I had to judge the movements on their overall tactics and effectiveness, I would wholeheartedly crown the Tea Party the victor. It pains me to give props to my former Governor (and more unfortunately, former Mayor) for things that do not involve Philadelphia sports teams, but Ed Rendell deserves them for his reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement:

“Look, you’ve made your point, you don’t think by sitting here you’re going to bring about change in law just by sitting here. No legislative body is going to be blackmailed.

“I mean the guys in Philadelphia said they’re going to be here all winter. Well that’s silly. You’ve made your point, you’ve gotten about all the publicity you’re going to get. Now get on with your lives and if you really care about this stuff, organize at the ballot box.”

And so my final thoughts for the members of the Occupy movement: If you really want to make a difference, register to vote. And then, go to your local polling place on November 8th and cast your ballot. Then, keep returning to your polling place every November and vote until your point is made. That, my friends, is democracy in action, and that is America is the longest-standing democracy in the world today.

Youth Voters and the 2012 Presidential Election

By Maggie Palin

In my mind one of the most fascinating periods in modern campaign history is undoubtedly the spring and summer of 2007. The entire country was engrossed in following the candidates crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. Congressional and party leaders were lining up in droves behind their chosen nominee, and you couldn’t go a few hours without hearing something new about the campaign trail. I even remember worrying that some uneducated voters would think that the election was that November, and not the one after.

Fast-forward four years to 2011 and you wouldn’t even think that the presidential campaign season has started if you didn’t live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or within the D.C. Beltway. Part of it has to do with the fact that the media isn’t engrossed in covering the campaign the way it was four years ago. Having the Democratic nominee already set probably also helps. Personally I believe that the populous has just become apathetic, especially towards the current crop of declared candidates. None of the key players are really that exciting. The candidate pool boasts several has-beens (former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich), Mormons whose religion just doesn’t seem to sit well with the evangelical base of the party (former Governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Jon Huntsman of Utah), and ultra-conservatives pining for the Tea Party vote (Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry).

All of this truly scares me. Not as a Republican, not as a political operative, but as a proud member of the millennial generation. I saw two-thirds of my peers vote for a president in 2008 that ran an elaborate PR campaign based around the words “hope” and “change” rather than discuss anything substantive on the trail. It also didn’t help that Barack Obama established himself as a true rock star by taking a break from campaigning in July 2008 to tour Europe, or by breaking tradition and accepting the Democratic nomination for President at Invesco at Mile High Stadium in front of a giant Parthenon-esque backdrop rather than at the convention site.

On the surface what’s not to like about Obama’s programs designed to help the millennial voter? One of the oft-overlooked parts of the comprehensive healthcare reform package of 2010 was that it provided Americans under the age of 26 the opportunity to stay on their parents’ or guardians’ healthcare plan regardless of their circumstance. Obama’s administration has also worked diligently to help take some of the burden off of college graduates by eliminating student loans for those who go into public service upon graduation. But all of these new programs have resulted in trillions of dollars added to the federal debt and a massive bloating of the federal budget that we just won’t be able to afford in years to come. And what my peers often forget when they lobby for things like universal healthcare and expanded welfare benefits is that we will be the ones paying for all of this when were in our middle age–and laden with college tuition for our children, mortgage payments, and the need to put aside money for our eventual retirement.

I kept telling myself that we could right this wrong, that we would retake Congress in 2010 (we almost got there) and hold onto both chambers while winning back the presidency in 2012. Yet the more I see the GOP field in action the more I wonder why we are giving Obama a second term. I can’t see the youth voter flocking around Santorum, or Bachmann, or Gingrich any more than they liked John McCain in 2008. We need a Republican who will help us find jobs and buy our first homes now but will do all this without mortgaging our future with high taxes and no social security funds. We need someone who respects our views on issues such as gay marriage and gun rights. I don’t know who this candidate is–or even if one exists–but unless the candidates start catering to their youngest voters Obama will certainly have no problem winning over this demographic next November, and in turn, retain his current residence.

Seven Ways to Cook Bin Laden

By Baroness Mandy

The Romans used to be very American, in an old-fashioned macho and preppy way. The Romans would exterminate an enemy, cherry pick their enemies’ leaders and march them in chains into central Rome. They would erect a triumphal arch on the forum’s ceremonial road to commemorate the Res Gestae of the administration of the day and make it into collective history.

Yes, sometimes they did fuck up. The Middle East was already a big deal of an issue at the time. There is an Arch, where Titus is celebrated for having destroyed the temple and stolen its outlandish furniture. There is also an episode in history, in which the expanding Empire happened to be represented by inadequate provincial authorities, which failed to succesfully manage the PR of the arrest of a terrorist. Jesus.

Jesus, this religious bonkers type of guy who dared undermine the Machiavellian use of religion made by the Imperial Court! Perhaps his followers didn’t have bombs, but he was undoubtedly a threat to the foundation of Roman power.

By killing him (after a quick popular poll) they committed a PR crime and gave Jesus martyr-celebrity status. By killing dissent they elevated his heresy. The big empire kills the beardy, absolutely white and Caucasian male godsend.

Now, let’s step back and start again. Do you remember the picture of Che Guevara shot dead? Wait for the one of Bin Laden to come out. That photo is the only thing that will be remembered by the desperate idiots who make up Al-Quaeda. That photo, not one of the wicked videoclips in which he was threatening every G8 country in the land. To some, he is now a Martyr and PR-wise that is a god thing for his cause.

Martyrs didn’t live in 1 million dollars suburbs and Martyrs do not usually mastermind killings or fashion themselves as the bad guys. Once a person dies, especially if their existence has been prematurely terminated, they do acquire a different status and we do believe that the whole Jihad club has now a new god to add to their Pantheon. Even if they crawl in their own poo on an Afghan bunker – rather than live in a Pakistani suburb!

What we want to assess here is the US government PR on the killing of Bin Laden. And the judgment is “bad fail”. Mind that we are not talking about Barack, who is now enjoying a surge of popularity (at least according to my Über-democratic US-born-and-bred Facebook friends).

At 4:35 am (GMT) yesterday Barack went on TV to announce that “it is a bright day” for the U.S. of A. A bright day that counter-balanced the “darkened” day of 9/11 because the “United States have conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin Laden”.

Yes, we (here meaning the U.S.) went there to kill him. Not to arrest him. Pakistan didn’t know, ‘cause they are a messy corrupt crowd’ and yes we are happy ‘cause they killed many of us and now we have beaten their bum up with guns and helicopters and bullets as Hollywood predicates (shall we expect an unknown beardy Bollywood actor beaten up by a shirtless, Morgan-Freeman-as-Obama-led Matt Damon at the movies next Christmas?).

Americans are happy. “Obama is not a pussy” and “we finally got revenge”. Obama and Palin – at last – speak the same lingo. Two (three?) wars are now fully justified. And the narrative of the U.S. killing bad people, both in the movies and when they are just too full of oil (or abandoned by CIA clerks), is confirmed and reinforced.

Good job Obama2012 Team! Bad job White House PR Dept. The loose cannons around the world will seek revenge. Many disgruntled potential jihad customers now have a new, powerful story to buy: the one of the Sheikh that once upon a time got killed – not stopped – by the Yankees. Even worse, the poor Pakistani establishment is being ridiculed in every chancery in the world. They can barely stand up as a government and they have now been badly humiliated. Nonetheless, they are, as a government, the ultimate gatekeepers of a desperate concoction of wannabe bombers.

Also, if we want to talk ethics and morals and leave Hannah Arendt to sleep, we can ask ourselves what happened to any sort of religious/moral feeling. We appreciate that a majority of the States that compose the U.S. have access to capital punishment. Right. Isn’t that usually given out after a trial?

Here there is no fair trial, no staged Nuremberg, and no Christian feelings. Here there is a Head of State merrily announcing a homicide, after the golf and before bedtime.

The U.S. governing elite sounded like an unripe, revengeful bunch. Celebrating a homicide that will cause many more deaths in an exercise of poor PR.

Okay, they fucked up, but how could they have improved? Well, before the Western media recovers from the warmongering state-killing euphoria we’ll list – exclusively for Spindoctorate – our seven ways in which the U.S. could have cooked better PR out of the Bin Laden death news item:

1. BIN LADEN DEATH A LA OH-DEAR-IT’S-A-PITY

Osama didn’t want to surrender so (1) he committed suicide or (2) was shot or (3) he was deliberately killed. NOTE: Say that you tried to arrest him first but he opposed resistance. EXTRA: You can add that you tried to escort him to a hospital but that he died into the hands of the soldiers during the transport. Too bad. We tried. It didn’t work.

 2. BULL’S EYE

Osama is (A) arrested, his miserable uncultivated beard photographed from every angle. OPTIONAL: He has a black eye (to sell more copies of the Sun) and what looks like pee on his tunic. Osama is (B) transferred to Guantanamo Bay, “yes people that legal opprobrium is there for some reason!” He greets his friends and wears an orange dress. He then (C) gets “suicided”.

3. OSAMA A LA COQUE

As in 2. Osama is taken to Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. then stage an Al-Quaeda-themed Nuremberg and sentence Osama to death at which point – EXTRA: he gets “suicided”.

4. OSAMA A LA ROMANA

As in 3. Osama is judged guilty along with his Guantanamo friends but he is sentenced to life imprisonment. EXTRA: Barack and the Pope go to visit him in a televised meeting at the prison. Osama cries on live TV. Here a conversion to Christianity is optional (we would surcharge the Vatican for that).

5. SOUS CHEF EXTRAORDINAIRE

Osama gets arrested/killed, the U.S. carry out the whole operation but they attribute it to the Pakistanis. Barack calls the Pakistani president and emails him a briefing with the lines for the media. “Pakistan arrested/killed Osama”. The U.S. congratulate with the ally. Pakistan’s reputation is strengthened. It is a Muslim country and it’s full of Jihadhists who are better to behave under such a determined leadership, who are such close allies of the U.S. EXTRA: Barack flies to Pakistan to see the body or to advocate extradition (which is – surprisingly – granted and Osama is treated as in point 2, 3 or 4).

6. SECRET RECIPE

Osama gets arrested and the arrest is kept secret. He gets interrogated and all of the Al-Quaeda cells linked to him get paid a visit by Mossad, CIA, and Jack the Ripper. Osama is used to destroy his own network of contacts. When the operation is concluded, the U.S. reveals part of the work done and trial Osama.

7. OSAMA BAKE BY NIGELLA LAWSON

Osama is captured and sentenced to life imprisonment but only after forcing him to participate in a 5-year reality show. In “Sheikh Shores” Osama spends one week with the families of victims of major terrorist attacks. New York City, Madrid, London, Istambul, Baghdad. Osama is harassed, makes friends, is raped and then understands all the bad things he has done. The show is subtitled in Arabic. In the last episode he meets Barack who tells him off and punches him repeatedly before a limo takes Osama back to the prison whilst Barack rides a white horse against the sunset. EXTRA: Alcatraz is regenerated and reopens with Osama as the only inmate (*profits to be donated to San Francisco’s homeless population and to the Castro Street Fair).

In conclusion, think of all the possibilities out there and don’t tell us better PR were not possible. If the U.S. knew where Osama was and if they assaulted him with numerous commandos then don’t tell us that they couldn’t find a way to keep him alive. With the tools and the time they had, don’t tell us they couldn’t find a way to have him perform every singe one of the actions suggested above – even starring in the reality show!

Let’s face it. The U.S. needs better PR. Brute force and homicides don’t pay off in the civilised kitchen of advertising.

Overheard in Washington DC

“I’m in a suit on K Street. It’s like one day I woke up and all of a sudden I had become the biggest tool in the world.” – Some dude on cell phone at K & 14th.

No Laughing Matter

By Aneurin Roosevelt

At Netroots UK this weekend Media Matters for America‘s speaker, Ari Rabin-Havat, begged the audience to mobilise against Rupert Murdoch’s proposed buy out of BSkyB. 

He demonstrated the seriousness of Fox News’s deterioration into a rhetoric-fuelled propaganda channel through a series of Fox News clips and closed with a warning: don’t let this happen in the UK.

The audience laughed at classic Fox moments like this one where Glenn Beck compares Nazis and Soviet Communists to the current American left, but after a few clips it began to dawn on delegates that this was really passing for news in the U.S.  Hours later thousands of miles away a man shot US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others at a constituency event in Arizona.  Among the factors widely thought to have contributed to this unhinged individual’s attack: the vitriolic nature of American political discourse.   

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf

U.S. media didn’t get this way overnight. One day Fox was a right-leaning news network: a few years later they were prematurely calling the election for George W, and now it’s finally transitioned to a full-on 24/7 promotional arm of the Republican party.

One Netroots delegate exclaimed that Sky could never take off in the UK as the British were just ‘too reasonable’.  But in America most citizens were shielded from the subtle moves made by Fox News, as well as to changes to surrounding media as the news environment gradually changed around them.  The effect was people didn’t realise what was happening until it was too late – much like lobsters in a boiling pot.  Ari might have done well to emphasis the gradual nature of the change in Fox News, which was not apparent to the British audience. 

So could a NewsCorp-owned BSkyB lead to Fox News UK?  Rumour has it that Murdock wants one, but News Corp gaining the controlling stake in BSkyB won’t by itself allow Sky News to do the same thing in the UK. 

Even if the merger is allowed to go through, there are other barriers preventing Sky evolving into a UK version of Fox.  At present Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code requires ‘due impartiality’ from news broadcasters.   Further, politicians are explicitly prevented from filling a newsreader/anchor or reporter role unless their affiliation is made explicit to the audience.   That is not to say that these rules could not be relaxed in the future, but this is where progressive groups online have a lot to contribute. 

The key then is engaging with the community, recognising the risks to all types of media, and then influencing MPs and the regulator on a range of media policy issues, not only about the proposed take over. It’s often too easy for politicians to dismiss media policy as an important secondary area while online activists shrug their shoulders to ‘old media’ issues, but the stakes are high.  In America left-leaning and moderate U.S. politicians have difficuilty communicating any kind of reasoned policy argument through mainstream media.  As a result in-depth discussion is hard to find for people who aren’t looking.  To be sure there are a range of places where people can get news from all parts of the political spectrum, but for those without a partisan agenda, television news still plays a powerful role in presenting different sides of the debate.  

On the whole, Netroots discussions downplayed the importance of linking the progressive grassroots online with influencing mainstream media which is a shame.  As Ari’s presentation demonstrated, when but when parts of the news media loose a grip on the truth, all other forms of political and policy discussions are jeopardised. 

The missed opportunities for Republicans in 2010

By Maggie Palin

Having now allowed some time for reflection of this years’ primary season, I’ve come to a few conclusions about this year’s primary wins.

I’m looking at November with rose-colored glasses. I’m excited about our opportunities in many key seats, such as the U.S. Senate seat in my home state of Pennsylvania. I truly hope we take back the House, and if we don’t win the Senate, come within a few seats of doing so. But as a pragmatist, I do believe that we had some opportunities to pick up seats in swing and/or Democratic-leaning states that we will not win because of the caliber of candidate we nominated in the primaries.

Take Sharron Angle in Nevada for example. Angle is running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is widely unpopular both nationally and in his home state. Reid is so unpopular that he cannot even protect his own son, Rory, from certain electoral defeat to the state’s chief executive office. This is most evident in the fact that Rory campaigns on a first-name basis only to separate himself from his father!

Yet we nominated a Tea Party activist who has no verbal control and rotates through campaign teams as quickly as some people change their dirty sheets.  As a State Senator, Angle voted in favor of domestic abusers and Scientologists, and has even said publically that she uses her Fox News appearances as fundraisers. The political environment is very favorable for Republicans in Nevada this election cycle, and I’m not saying that any of the other candidates were that much better, but if Harry Reid is re-elected in November, it is because we nominated Angle in the primary last June.

Recent polling results clearly show that this race has the potential to be a lost opportunity for us: Pollster.com’s overall average for the race has Reid up one percent in the polls, while a late August poll conducted by Mason-Dixon on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal found that two-thirds (68%) of voters—including 71% of Republicans—would have preferred that another candidate had been nominated instead of Angle.

More recently, Christine O’Donnell’s win in the Delaware Senate primary against Representative Mike Castle is another example of a prime target we lost as a result of the nominee we chose. Video footage of O’Donnell discusses her dalliances into Wicca and witchcraft as a teen, and the comments that she has made about many social issues as the founder of the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) would make many Republicans roll their eyes back into their sockets.

While she may not rank as high on the “crazy” scale as Sharron Angle, the fact that she was nominated in a liberal Northeastern state where the Democrats outnumber Republicans in voter registration 3 to 2 is just as painful. Her Democratic opponent—New Castle County Executive Christopher Coons—is so liberal that he is affectionately known by Senator Reid as “my pet.” With the seat open for the first time in decades as a result of Joe Biden’s ascendency into the Vice President’s mansion, this would have been a prime pickup for Republicans and instead we are merely giving Reid his “pet” in November according to several recent polls.

Don’t get me wrong—I want to take back Washington just as much as any other Republican out there. And admittedly I’m a fiscal conservative—I am rather liberal when it comes to most social issues. But I am disappointed in my party at the fact that they chose candidates who do not help the Republican cause, and hope that it won’t stop us from retaking at least one of the chambers in November.

Ahmadinjad lies because we let him

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

I can’t help but despair when reading through this article on “Ahmadinejad, master of spin“. In shedding light on Ahmedinejad’s media approach, it showcases how seasoned journalists fail to address his inane manifestations and lies as being just that.

From Jon Leyne’s BBC piece it is derived that journalists expect to corner the Iranian president and with the right prompt trigger some sort of confession accounting for wrongdoings.

In the article we read that

in an interview on Sunday with Christiane Amanpour on the ABC News programme This Week, he dismissed as “propaganda” the stoning sentence defence lawyers say was imposed on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

When asked his own opinion on the issue of stoning in general, he simply avoided the question.

Then, he flatly denied the claim that the number of executions in Iran had dramatically increased since he took office, something attested both by human rights organisations and by international news agencies who keep a running tally of executions announced in the Iranian media.

At Columbia University in New York, he stated boldly that there was complete freedom in Iranian universities. Several students who went out to protest against him on his return to Tehran were promptly arrested.

So why is it that our journalists are so concerned with exposing his ‘spin techniques’ rather than calling a spade for a spade and in this case, a lie for a lie? Why is it that it seems that journalists are willfully seeking to be proved wrong by Ahmadinejad? And why is it that this man is weighed against values, principles and morals which he has no intentions of adhering to?

The Beginning of the End of the 2010 American Midterm Elections

By Maggie Palin

There are several things that you can count on every time Labor Day comes and goes. Our minds tell us it’s the end of summer (even if it really does not become fall until the Autumnal equinox), kids fill up their backpacks with brand-new school supplies for their first day of school, workplace water cooler debate reverts to talk of fantasy football leagues and BCS standings, and white pants get buried in the back of the closet until next summer. And unless you live in one of the handful of states that have meaningful elections in the off-years, the Labor Day of an even term year—such as this year—brings with it one more important milestone: the official kick-off to the general election campaign. Yes it is that time of year again, when our roads and sidewalks become littered with yard signs and leaflets, when our phone lines bombarded with phone calls from survey research firms, and our TV and radio waves become filled with political advertisements.

Campaigns aren’t the only ones telling us who to vote for in November, however. While the media has been writing and rewriting the political debate for months now the voting electorate is finally reading and digesting the message.

So what did the voters learn from the mainstream media today?

• The Washington Post: “Another reason for a big GOP blowout at Midterms”
• The New York Times: “State Gains Would Give Redistricting Edge to GOP”
• The Philadelphia Inquirer: “Democrats mobilize to thwart GOP ‘tsunami’”
• Politico: “Latest polls predict a blow-out loss for Democrats in November”
• MSNBC.com: “Poll: GOP advantage ahead of midterms”

All of these headlines have one major theme in common—that the GOP will win big in November. While I am cautiously optimistic myself that the GOP will take back many, if not all, of the seats it has lost in Washington over the past two cycles, the fact that the news is essentially calling the race on the first day that the average American pays attention does worry me.

The media has been known to distort the truth in the past for commercial gain. Many Americans also consider the mainstream media to be politically biased to one political ideology or another. Regardless, having the mainstream media handicap the race at this juncture is harmful to the democratic process. If swing and undecided voters believe the race is over and the GOP has won in a landslide, they may feel that their vote is not necessarily and skip the ballot box on November 2nd. Long-term Democratic voters who have not engaged in the process thus far may become energized at the thought of losing Congress and tighten up the race. The best-case scenario for Republicans is that the Republican base continues to become mobilized and turns out in heavy numbers on Election Day. In short, having the media call the race this early in the game does nothing but hamper the political process rather than keep the American public engaged.

Whether the predictions from today’s papers are right we will not know for approximately eight more weeks. But as the unelected fourth estate of government, the media should go back to just reporting the facts, and not shaping the message. That job belongs to the American people—and the representatives they elect to Washington.

How to Win Over the Millennial Vote in the 2010 American Midterm Elections

By Maggie Palin

The 2008 Presidential Election saw an influx in the number of Millennial voters (voters born after 1982) getting involved in politics and voting at the polls. But how much of this will transfer into this year’s Midterm Elections, and how exactly will these voters decide which candidates and issues they want to support on the ballot. Analyzing the voting patterns of millennial voters has always been a specialty of mine—I conducted several papers and theses on the topic while in college. But further research demonstrates that these voters are constantly evolving, and it is important for campaigns to know how these voters think politically to win over their support now and in the future.

Internet killed the video star

Robert Putnam wrote in his book Bowling Alone that Americans were living in a “weak ties” nation, where they were becoming isolated from their communities and apathetic towards politics. The last few years has brought a resurgence of a “strong ties” nation among millennial voters, however, largely as a result of the growth of the Internet and social networking. Facebook, MySpace and other similar websites have connected people, especially the younger generations, in an unprecedented fashion that IMs, telephones and emails could never achieve. Most campaigns have picked up on this, and have created Facebook profiles for them to disseminate information to the voters and create a community of volunteers to rely upon for grassroots efforts. The Pew Research Center reported in its February 2010 study on millennials that one in three (32%) have posted a message of some type on a social network in the past 24 hours and more than half (56%) have sent an email during that same timeframe. These numbers only further the case that the Internet is the best tool for reaching out to Millennial voters and will continue to be so as time passes, as the study found that the older voters got, the less likely they were to use the Internet and social networking sites.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

Millennial voters tend to be much more socially liberal than older voters.  Just over half (52%) of them are pro-choice and 50% support gay marriage according to the same Pew study. The number of millennials who are pro-choice, however, is only slightly higher than that of older adults, as 48% of people between the ages of 30 and 64 are pro-choice.  MIllennials are more liberal with respect to their support for gay marriage, as only 43% of Generation X-ers (ages 30-49) and 32% of Baby Boomers (ages 50-64) support gay marriage. A possible explanation for the fact that millennials are more open to gay marriage is that two-thirds (65%)of them say they have at least one friend or family member who is gay.  Millennials are also much less religious overall, as only 37% of them actively participate in religious activities (including daily prayer) and one in three (31%) consider themselves to be unaffiliated with any religion.

It’s the economy, stupid

Overall, millennial voters tend to vote Democratic in general elections. The Pew study found that 51% plan to vote for the Democratic Congressional candidate in their district in November while only 37% plan to vote Republican. The number of who identify themselves as Republican/Lean Republican has also risen since 2007 from 30% to 35%, while the number of who identify themselves as Democrats/Lean Democrat has dropped by the same amount. Yet these voters are trending Republican, as only one in three (33%) planned to vote Republican in 2006.

A large part of this can be attributed to their preference for fiscal conservatism and the current state of the economy. In a study conducted by USA Today in October of 2008, 50% of all Millennial voters said that the most important issue in deciding who to vote for that November was the economic crisis, and four in ten (39%) were most worried about the rise in unemployment. My firm’s polling over the past year has found that this is still true, as nearly all of our federal and statewide polls have demonstrated that this is the most important issue to them as well. This also explains to some degree why made up the largest chuck of “Paulites”—supporters of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2008 and potentially in 2012. Paul, and subsequently his son Rand—who is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky this year—made a name for himself as being a libertarian Republican who advocates for a smaller government and less government regulation of the financial markets. They are also the most likely (44%) out of all generations to believe that the private businesses make a fair amount of profits and are not too powerful, further proving their capitalistic nature.

So what really matters to millennial voters?

At the polling firm that I work for we use a proprietary tool called the “Values Centered Issue Analysis” (or VCIA for short) that helps us have a better idea of the motivations and thought process of voters as they consider the most important issues to them in the upcoming elections. Looking specifically at the responses of voters 18-34 from studies conducted in a variety of Congressional Districts throughout the United States, we discovered that the economy and unemployment is still the largest concern to them and what they would like to see fixed first. Millennial voters want to see the economy improve because they are worried about their friends (and in some cases, themselves) who are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet, and how this is having a negative impact on their communities. They would like to see the economy improve so that they can have better financial futures as they start their families and enter middle-age. Millennial voters are also very concerned with the fact that they believe the Federal Government has failed them in recent years, and helped contribute to the current economic situation. Again this impacts their communities and thus, in their minds, having a government that works for them will not only improve the economy but restore prosperity to the country both in their minds and in the minds of the rest of the world.

Values-Centered Issue Analysis of Millennial Voters

What to say to Millennial Voters this Fall

Winning over Millennial voters in the polls is possible if campaigns focus on a few different things. First, the more a campaign connects with millennial voters through the Internet, the more likely they are to turn these voters into both supporters and volunteers. One note of caution is that they should not push a large focus on fundraising with these voters—considering the economic state of the country and the high numbers of unemployment among, the last thing a Millennial voter wants to hear from a candidate is “Would you be willing to donate to my campaign?” Republican candidates should also target the younger voter with a message about improving the economy and working to decrease the unemployment rate nationwide, as that is by far their biggest concern and the issue that will likely make or break their support for you in November.  Reminding these voters that you would like to see the economy improve will also help them become more optimistic about their own individual lives and the lives of their families, friends and communities. And if all these steps are followed, the millennial vote should be winnable by the GOP in November.