No offense, but #$@& Alaska…

Sarah Palin may be the most scrutinized governor in the history of Alaska – a state that many Americans probably didn’t actually know was a real place up until last August.  Her resignation has only stoked that attention – and as Stanley Fish wrote in yesterday’s New York Times, media coverage refuses to take her words at face value that she feels the political system is broken despite the era “hope” and “change” that was supposed to be ushered in last January.

Here are some economic facts worth considering: Ben Stein, the former Nixon speechwriter who gained fame as a bit player in John Hughes movies in the 80s, commanded $30,000 per speech when he hit the college speaking circuit for Young America’s Foundation a few years back.  Palin could likely pull down $35,000-$40,000 a night speaking to packed college auditoriums.  In other words, she could probably pull down the annual $125,000 salary of an Alaskan governor inside of a week.  Not to mention that a wise PR director would make sure she had local TV and radio appearances.  And this doesn’t even take into account corporate speaking engagements, which she could probably charge double or triple for.

It all adds up to a lot more than most 45-year-olds earn on a yearly basis – especially 45-year-olds with five kids and a grandchild.  But there’s as many political reasons why her choice may be right for her as there are economic reasons. If you were Sarah Palin and had something to say about the state of the country, which would be a better platform for you – Governor of Alaska, a political office where you have constant legal challenges and criticisms, or giving speeches from coast to coast for a week or two a month, commenting on radio shows here and there, and writing books and opinion pieces?  And if she wanted to start her own think tank or 527, there are plenty of people who would line up to give her money – her already well-supported PAC reported a spike in fundraising after her resignation.

Given that her first exposure to national politics resulted in a steady drumbeat of opposing voices calling her a dolt at best and an unfit mother at worst, this may be the avenue to engage in the national debate on her own terms – and to reposition herself if she wants to make a future run for the Presidency (which, incidentally, only pays about $400,000).

“Politically speaking, if I die, I die.  So be it,” said Palin on Good Morning America – reflecting the candor which attracts her most dedicated followers.  She may not want to get back into the fray of electoral politics, but Palin is far from politically dead.

Err McNair?

In a quasi-obituary of the late Steve McNair, ESPN’s Jemele Hill  argued that we should remember the highlights of the former superstar in the wake of his tragic death – and not get caught up in the apparently adulterous circumstances surrounding his demise.

I should admit two things upfront:  I tend to abhor Jemele Hill’s columns (although I saw her doing a segment as a talking head on ESPN’s First Take morning show, and thought she was much better on TV).  That’s just my personal opinion on her writing style, although I usually disagree with her points as well. I was also a big fan of Steve McNair as a football player; as has been rehashed over and over in the days since his death, he seemed to play through more injuries than anyone else and, more than any other player, carried his team when his team needed carrying.

In reading this piece, though, I found myself agreeing with Hill – something that only happens once or twice a year, at most.  It made sense to remember NcNair for his accomplishments and not his detriments.  But one paragraph made me do a complete 180:

But my lasting images of McNair will be of him as a football gladiator, clutch performer and, overall, a decent man. Those images won’t be replaced by the TMZ photos of him on vacation with Sahel Kazemi, the young woman who died along with him. I’ll leave the judging to a higher authority.

Indeed, the facts surrounding McNair’s not out. But there’s something about athletes, entertainers, and sometimes politicians that allow us to gloss over their flaws to remember the great things they did on the field, on the stage, or in the halls of power.

In discussing him as a role model, McNair’s flaws do matter – not in the consideration of his football career, but in consideration of him as a person.  We know about McNair the Hall of Fame football player, but we should remind ourselves that we don’t know much beyond that – and because we don’t know, we can’t hail McNair as a model citizen in anything beyond the white lines.  As in any endeavor, success on the field means little if one cannot honor his own family.  Mark Sanford is a similar cautionary tale in the field of politics; the mysterious Michael Jackson comes to mind in entertainment.

Time may or may not reveal all the details surrounding McNair’s life and death.  As Hill reminds us, we can hail his on-field achievements whether those facts come to light or not; there are no doubts about those.  But neither McNair nor any athlete – nor, for that matter, any public figure – should be assumed to be great simply for what they do on the professional field.

It’s like listening to music in the Dark Ages

When you turn 30, it takes less and less to make you feel old.  Case in point for me is the reaction of a British teenager whom the BBC convinced to give up his iPod to carry around a Walkman for a week.

An no, not a “Walkman” as in Sony’s MP3 players.  Scott Campbell carried around a portable cassette player.  Taunts and ridicule from his peers made him eager to give it up, although there was some technological confusion, too – for example, it took Scott a bit to figure out that the tapes were two-sided.

And of course, Scott complains about the size, the shortage of music on a single tape, and other inconveniences – but probably because these damn kids today with their music don’t know what us children of the 80’s had to go through…

It’s Washington, so we can chalk this up to habit

The newspaper that taught us to “follow the money” is apparently doing the same: Politico reports that the Washington Post has advertised events to sell access to reporters and government officials.

This type of thing isn’t new – political debates and public forums often have media sponsors.  But those events have a purpose which serves the “public good” (and as journalists like to remind us, theirs is a profession where the pursuit of public good is vital).  The public good in exclusive “Salons” for the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia is, shall we say, somewhat less clear.

New on YouTube: Citizen journalism and civic action

As many social networks as exist, YouTube still has the greatest potential for driving action for the simple reason that video is a powerful medium for communication – and short videos are even more so.

By offering a platform where people could host and share their videos easily, YouTube has had no small role in advancing the citizen journalism; if blogs gave everyone a printing press, YouTube has given everyone a TV news station.  YouTube is taking its role in this media re-alignment seriously, too, by creating a Reporters’ Center – a resource page with various videos to help people produce better news stories.

While some corners of the media landscape like to harp on bloggers and internet news as “unofficial” and “unprofessional”, this offers a real solution to those somewhat apt criticisms.  While there will always be muckrakers and yellow journalists in any media, these resources will help increase the amount of well-researched coverage through channels that news consumers are increasingly turning to.

Another new development from YouTube – that actually interests me a bit more personally – are the “call to action overlays” that launch today.  If you’re a YouTube advertiser, you can now run a link on your video that points viewers to another website.

Virally popular commercials – like the McDonald’s Filet-o-Fish commercial from this past Lent – can now link directly to the products they hawk.  But more importantly, political videos can do more  than simply raise awareness and frame issues.  Imaging the now-infamous “macaca video” with a link directing you to a page where you could contact then-Senator George Allen’s office.  (Of course, mass emails to Allen’s office may not be the most effective way to contact the Senator, but it would build a heck of a nice email list.)  Having videos that directly inspire action will make YouTube an advocacy tool for campaigns that may have, previously, only looked at it as a messaging tool.

Question for the President

With his last health care town hall drowned out of the media spotlight by l’affair Sanford and the death of Michael Jackson, President Barack Obama is hosting another one – this time online.  (Which is probably strategically better – after all, he won’t have to worry about having McDonald’s commercials playing in between his calls for preventive medicine, as happened on the ABC telecast.)

The president is inviting questions on YouTube – and TechRepublican contributor Jonathan Rick has obliged with a good one:

Did you see that story on anything but Michael Jackson?

In the 17 hours or so since Michael Jackson’s death has been reported, an interesting rift has developed in online communications.  Apparently, some folks who have been discussing the Iran elections are upset that so many people are discussing celebrity deaths:

Twitter screen shot

This is probably a reflection of a few things.  First, there is an age gap in appreciating Michael Jackson’s career.  If you were born after 1985, your first memories of Michael Jackson are probably the world premiere of the “Black or White” video, and increasingly fragile physique, and a series of bizarre controversies and allegations of inappropriate conduct around young boys.  But it you are in the first generation to have MTV (back when it was ’round-the-clock music videos) or older, you remember that Michael Jackson almost single-glovedly invented the concept of pop music entertainment.

There’s also the fact that news, like politics, is local.  The loss of an iconic American pop culture figure is naturally going to mean more to Americans than election protests halfway around the world.  (And it’s worth noting that the folks who decide what news gets on TV have a role to play.  This week’s DC Metro crash probably wouldn’t have had the same coverage if it happened on a public transportation system for a city that doesn’t host a major bureau for every news organization in the known universe.)

They have a point, and it isn’t the only story getting swept under a rug.  Mark Sanford’s Argentinian dalliances have been muted outside South Carolina, and the Barack Obama health care debate is moving along on Capitol Hill in the background of the national consciousness.

The great thing about modern media is that, even if the “mainstream” press is obsessed with one story, an avid reader can seek out information from other sources.  And it for media analysis junkies, it provides a platform for discussions that simply don’t happen in one-way broadcast media.  In no other environment could the worlds of Michael Jackson and Iranian Fundamentalists collide in quite the same way.

If only there was some way to combine the issues…

Oh, we definitely know what works… don’t we?

In ABC’s Obamercial last night, our President gave Billy Mays and the Sham-Wow guy both runs for their respective money by talking a lot without saying much.  I missed a few minutes here or there to watch the end of the Yankees/Braves game, but caught the following comment from President Obama (and verified it later through a news story):

There’s a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.

There’s a funny thing about scientific evidence: it doesn’t seem to last.  In fact, just yesterday National Geographic was reporting on new research which may completely change our understanding of the Earth’s magnetic field and iron core.  It touched off a bit of a debate in the scientific community – some are calling the research groundbreaking, some call it junk science.  It sounds like the type of argument a Muslim might have with a Jew or a Protestant might have with a Catholic – or it would, if we didn’t all know that science is above such arguments.

The point is that evidence changes.  One need only take a tour of the George Washington Masonic Temple in Alexandria, Va. – which sounds scary, but is actually pretty interesting.  One of the first stops on the tour discusses Washington’s death, which happened in large part because the standard treatment at the time was blood-letting.  A younger doctor who questioned opening Washington’s veins and suggested an alternative treatment was shrugged off.

(None of it matters now, of course, because chances are that Washington would have died at another point in the past 210 years anyway, but he may have squeezed out another few years.)

Politicians deal in absolutes because some issues require it – and the more controversial an issue is, the more firm one must be in order to win public opinion.  But I’m not comfortable with Barack Obama telling me and my doctor what is necessary and what isn’t when it comes to my treatment.