Author: Jim Eltringham

Political consultant specializing in grassroots mobilization, online media, and public relations.

New Journalism and too many white dudes

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Emily Bell notices a trend among the teams Nate Silver and Ezra Klein are putting together for their new, future-of-journalism companies: There are an awful lot of white guys:

Well, [Klein’s] project X may now be called Vox, but the great VC-backed media blitz of 2014 is staffed up and soft-launching, and it looks a lot more like Projects XY. Indeed, it’s impossible not to notice that in the Bitcoin rush to revolutionize journalism, the protagonists are almost exclusively – and increasingly – male and white.

Bell recoils from Silver’s comments that he hired partially based on “clubhouse chemistry”: “A clubhouse. Do we really still have to have one of those?” Silver probably does, since he works at ESPN.  Since it’s a sports network, ESPN predominantly caters to men.

Yet Bell writes this from the authority of her dual posts at Guardian and Columbia University. This is not, apparently, the opening manifesto of her own journalism site.  Her screed is merely a complaint from these established beachheads, pointing out that the do-ers aren’t doing enough.

She’s probably right: There might be room for newer, more diverse voices in the marketplace the Kleins and Silvers are trying to occupy.  It’s just a shame she’s passing up such a great business opportunity.

 

Project Ivy and digital coat tails

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Over at Communities Digital News, I have a new piece up about Project Ivy – the Democrats’ plan to deploy the digital tools that helped President Obama in 2012 and Terry McAuliffe in 2013 into down ballot races in 2014:

The data tools used this year may not help Democrats keep their hold on the Senate, or win more Governorships, or even gain ground in state legislative chambers. But all the data collected with those tools in 2014 will be mighty useful when a few hundred votes in Cuyahoga County could decide the White House in two short years.

Republicans may not need to match Democrats data point for data point to have a pretty good election cycle in 2014. But deploying their own tools with the future in mind will help build their abilities for coming cycles. 

You want more?  Here it is.

Democrats know they are facing an against-the-spread election this November. They’ll lose seats, but the question is how many. Dropping as many as five Senate seats to the GOP will look like a win if they maintain a voting majority for the next term.  And like a baseball team playing out the string with a 40-man roster in September, minor league talent in down-ballot races can help set the table for future victories.  Project Ivy isn’t really for 2014, it’s for 2016.

But if I bled Democrat blue there would be one major factor that rubs me the wrong way about Project Ivy: the name.

First off, ivy grows up, while the project takes high-level tactics and tries to push them down.  Maybe that strategy makes sense for Democrats, who put so much faith in federal government programs to cure the ills of small communities, but the metaphor is a bit off.

Second, remember Project ORCA? It was the widely panned GOTV app that Team Romney deployed in 2012, and was so named because the Obama team’s data processing system was nicknamed “Narwhal,” and orcas kill narwhals.  As it turned out, the narwhal was an octopus with tentacles everywhere, and orcas don’t do crap against octopi.  This metaphor is getting even more tortured, so let’s move to the point: A clever name often foreshadows failure.  The only political tactical operations with cool names that work are the ones you hear about after the election.

The best news for the GOP about Project Ivy might be the fact that the first news stories about it are in March 2014, and not the week after Election Day.

The right to discriminate

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Kansas says that if you own a restaurant, your property is your property, even if you refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples.  Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern feels that’s an “abomination,” and Salon’s Matt Breunig calls out conservatives and libertarians who believe that discrimination carries its own consequences.

Breunig specifically calls out one of the most consistently pro-liberty voices on the right, Tim Carney:

This fact is important to remember as the state of Kansas considers enshrining into its law the right of public accommodations like hotels, movie theaters and restaurants to discriminate against couples in same-sex marriages. Under this law, a manager who spotted a same-sex marriage party dining at his restaurant is empowered to refuse them service and demand that they leave.

In his never-ending quest to be on the wrong side of history on all things LGBT civil rights, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner took to Twitter to defend this legislation, perhaps hoping that he will get a mention in future documentaries about the bigotry of this period.

…

Suppose a gay wedding party goes into a restaurant, sits down, and prepares to order. The restaurant manager comes over and tells them that they must leave because they are gay. Angered by this bigotry, the patrons refuse to leave. Now ask yourself: What happens next?

Here’s what happens: The police are called, and the trespassers are removed from the premises.  Then, the incident gets a write-up in the local paper, and people stop eating at that restaurant because they would call the police to kick out a gay wedding party that was otherwise well-behaved.  The restaurant closes down, and the restaurant owner who called the cops either changes his mind or he goes broke and starves to death.

The idea that anti-discriminatory values have to be enforced is absurd.  If you’re a store owner that doesn’t like black people, go ahead and ban them from your store and see how that works out for you.  Don’t want Hispanic shoppers?  Hang a sign out front that says “No vendemos a clientes Latinos.”  Go for it.  I dare you.

No business owner in their right mind would do that.  And if they did, the people who shopped there would get funny looks wherever else they went.  Laws that tell us how we should live can mask social problems, but letting people figure it out for themselves non-violently tends to actually solve them.

 

 

 

 

The False Dichotomy of Science vs. Religion

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Kudos to Science Guy (and Newhart nemesis) Bill Nye and Creation Museum founder  Ken Ham.  Many of those who disagree on the question of how the Earth was made don’t talk to each other.  These guys went the other way.  (And they got into it, too, the video at that link is almost three hours long.)  At the very least, that shows that both are sincere in their science-based approach to problem solving.

But there is a problem when this type of debate is played out.  Folks like Ham says the Earth is just 6,000 years old.  Folks like Nye says our world couldn’t have been constructed in six days.  Interlopers like to say this is science versus religion.  

So what’s a year, and what’s a day?  Those are pretty relative terms, since they are based on a single astronomical relationship: the Earth’s motions around the Sun.  Days are shorter on Saturn, and years are longer on Venus.  For a God who created the universe, these are small measurements.  

We do know that there are laws of physics.  When the crap hit the fan during the Apollo 13 mission, NASA was able to calculate a plan to use the gravitational forces of the moon to slingshot the spacecraft home.  The moon’s forces, though not completely understood, behaved in a predictable way.  The busted tin can with three astronauts on board reacted to those forces in a predictable way.   Astrophysicists call that science, but if you sit back and think about it, it’s a miracle.  (And not just because they math they got right was really, REALLY hard.)

We know that moons orbit planets, and planets orbit stars, and stars orbit giant mysterious centers of galaxies.  We know those galaxies stretch out over incomprehensibly vast expanses of the cosmos, yet form patterns as well.

How miraculous is it that those forces and reactions are intelligible?  How amazing is it that out of the black emptiness of space came the forces of gravity and dark energy that created suns, planets, galaxies, moons, asteroids, quasars, black holes and a bunch of stuff we haven’t even figured out yet?  

Read the first passages of the Book of Genesis, then read a scientific account of how planets are formed.  It’s great that Ham and Nye had a civil and good-natured, discussion about the origins of the universe.  But did they really have anything to disagree about?

 

Mitt, we hardly knew ye

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Mitt Romney is letting his perfect hair down to promote the Netflix documentary chronicling his White House run.  Predictably, without the pressures and influence of a campaign, people are a bit more receptive to him.

(Bob Dole had a similar tour after losing in 1996, trading jokes with David Letterman and quipping that he didn’t “have anything else to do” but write jokes.)

More than one Republican has bemoaned the fact that, had voters seen such a touching look at the Romney family, the 2012 election may have ended differently.  “If only voters had seen THIS Mitt Romney, Obama would have lost!” they tend to exclaim.  Not always in exactly those words, but you get the picture.

And come to think of it, it’s a good point.  One wonders why the documentary had to come out over a year after all the votes were counted.  If the image of Romney presented in the documentary would have swayed the election, Team Romney have only themselves to blame.

A 2016 Presidential candidate could grant access to a friendly but independent documentary filmmaker and create a Netflix or YouTube miniseries.  The film would not be subject to any campaign approval, which would make the vetting process important.  But it would soften the candidate’s image, and possibly help voters relate to the candidate.  It would humanize a talking head voters see on TV.

Gov. Chris Christie could use such a medium to rebound from scandal.  Sen. Rand Paul could use it to articulate how his small-government ideas will help most Americans.  Sen. Ted Cruz could show that he isn’t as much of an ideologue as the media and Democrats suggest.  The one who needs it the most is Hillary Clinton, who is more a creature of Washington, D.C. than any other prospective candidate in the field.

There is a caveat: this strategy only works if the candidate is genuine.  If the public persona doesn’t match private conversations, then it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

For Romney, a running documentary series could have answered the image of the ruthless CEO with one of the consummate family man.  Even though it probably wouldn’t have pushed him over the hump, those who will chase the White House in 2016 should pay attention.

Redefining marriage and the Grammys

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The social media dust has settled, and the most “shocking” part of the Grammys was the 33-couple mass wedding – which wasn’t really shocking at all.  The event has generally been interpreted as a nod to the same sex marriage movement.  In terms of public statements, supporting same-sex marriage at an entertainment industry event is about as non-controversial as you can be.  (Way to go out on a limb, Grammys.)

It does show the disconnect between what marriage used to be and what it is now.   The push to accept legal same-sex marriage is less about the “who” of marriage and more about the “what.”  

The ceremony was a cheap, attention-grabbing display.  Mass marriages are the stuff of cults.  Having Queen Latifah perform the ceremony seems several steps below an Elvis impersonator running the show.  And imagine hiring Madonna to play your reception and not having her play “Like a Virgin” or even old standards like “Material Girl.”  It’s like going to a Journey concert and the band refusing to play “Don’t Stop Believin’.”  Unacceptable.

No matter how you define marriage, that whole scene was ridiculous, right?

Yet it’s not much different from the cavalier attitude entertainers display toward the institution of marriage, regardless of the genders of the participants.  Multiple marriages and divorces seem to have been common in Hollywood since before the big sign went up.  “Til death do us part” gave way early to, “Maybe we can get a good ten years in.”

Marriage used to be about starting a family – the foundation from which life was propagated.   Now it’s a legally recognized promise two people make to share their lives with one another for the term of the open-ended agreement.  That subtle semantic difference is a tremendous re-orientation.  The focus has moved from the products of marriage – the children – to the participants.

If the latter is the way you understand the concept of marriage, recognizing same-sex marriage makes a lot more sense.  Of course it would be unfair to legally recognize some couplings and not others.  (Incidentally, that’s a big reason a growing number of conservative and libertarian thinkers are in favor of getting the government out of marriage completely – it allows people the freedom of conscience to define their relationships without needing consecration from some government.)

Looking at marriage this way, you can see where the sanctimony of so many pro-same sex marriage groups and people comes from – an attitude which often manifests itself in reflexive hatred and derision for tradition marriage opponents. Few of the in-person witnesses of the Grammy mass wedding understand the more traditional definition of marriage – and unfortunately, they don’t seem to care to do so.  That’s a pity, because if there was mutual respect and open-mindedness, there could be a pretty healthy discussion.  

Is a cold-weather Super Bowl the worst thing ever?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

You’d think so, if you listen to sports media.  ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski hates it (and did even before it was cool), ESPN radio hosts like Colin Cowherd have weighed in against it as well.  Fox’s Terry Bradshaw isn’t a fan, either.

Why are the protests against a cold-weather Super Bowl so loud?  Despite what they may say about the weather affecting the game itself or the fans at MetLife Stadium, these folks have a personal reason: They’re covering the game, and spending a week in New Jersey in the winter sucks.  Of course they want the Super Bowl in a warm weather city; spending a week in Miami in January and getting paid for it is good work if you can get it.

But the audience that has made the Super Bowl a cultural event – and not just a game – is the Super Bowl Party audience, the people who treat the game as a reason to gorge on buffalo wings with friends while discussing the commercials.  The weather wouldn’t matter beyond possibly making the game entertaining.  The NFL knows where it’s bread is buttered.

Incidentally, Hampton Stevens of the Atlantic thinks it’s a great idea, evoking memories of the “Ice Bowl.”  Stevens probably won’t be at the game.

The weather media says it’s probably going to be nasty out there.

Peer Pressure and Hall Of Fame Voting

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

ESPN’s Jayson Stark struggled with his Hall of Fame ballot this year.  You can see why if you look at the official ballot – there are an awful lot of good players on there, so picking only 10 must have been tough to begin with.  And then there’s this dilemma which Stark faced:

I tried ranking them … But the more I considered voting according to any top-10 list I could come up with, the more I felt that many of those votes were going to be “wasted,” on players who couldn’t possibly get elected.

When a friend asked me to share my picks on Facebook, I never thought to include Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens.  Mike Piazza was a tentative addition.  Unlike the Rafeal Palmeiros and Sammy Sosas of the world, there seems to be general consensus that these three would have been Hall of Famers with or without the steroid use they have been accused of.  Stark is right though – voting for Clemens or Bonds is a wasted vote, because there is no prayer that either gets the 75% needed for induction.  

I wonder how that will affect the other candidacies.  Individual voters may not believe the performance-enhancing drug rumors around Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, but do they have confidence other voters are buying them?  With so  many deserving names on the ballot, why cast your lot for someone more likely to hover around 60% when someone like Jack Morris may be just a few votes away from baseball immortality?

For what it’s worth, my ballot would have been Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Craig Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Frank Thomas, Bagwell, Edgar “The Antichrist” Martinez (grudgingly), Don Mattingly, and Alan Trammell.  (I don’t actually have a ballot, so it’s worth nothing.)  Mike Mussina, Moises Alou, and Tim Raines also deserve election, but should have some years of eligibility left.  

Winning On Obamacare

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

From the latest “By the Numbers” column on the Washington Times Communities:

The Obama Administration’s rocky implementation of the Affordable Care Act has made the Republican Party increasingly optimistic in the early days of 2014. Each piece of bad Obamacare news has helped cement “Winning the Senate” as the top item on the GOP New Year’s resolution list.

And why not? With every failure, the fissures in President Barack Obama’s electoral coalition widen a bit more. Those cracks were on display in December polls. Millenials don’t like the law – 56% disapprove, according to one survey from the Harvard Institute of Politics. Approval ratings for the President are falling among Latino and Hispanic voters, says a Gallup poll; Obama’s 52% mark reflects a 23% drop in the past year.

This news paints a rosy picture for Republican election prospects. It also comes with an important to-do list. Just because people are frustrated with Democrats doesn’t mean they will run into the Republicans’ open arms.

Read more here.

Apple’s ad won the Holidays

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

It’s too bad that Apple’s “Misunderstood” commercial probably won’t end up being replayed every single year, the way the spots touting Hershey Kisses and M&M’s do. It was the best commercial of this holiday season, and it looks like Apple spent lots of time looking at Google’s advertising handiwork.

The ad features a seemingly self-absorbed kid spending the holidays messing with his phone, only to reveal that he’s been carefully crafting a video memory for everyone.  The message is self-serving: that technology which isolates us actually brings us together.  But it’s well done, and who doesn’t have some nostalgia for big family get-togethers?

Best of all, without a word of dialogue, it tells a story.  You know this family loves and cherishes each other. From the joy of the first greeting to the ice skating and sledding to the grandmother’s wistful tears on Christmas morning, they enjoy each other’s company.  They’ll treasure the memories when they look back on this video.  And, of course, Apple hopes you’ll look at it and remember the idealized Christmases of your youth, tugging at your heartstrings the way “A Christmas Story” reminds you of that toy you wanted.   Niagara Falls, Frankie Angel.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhwhnEe7CjE