Hello World!
Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by President Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.
I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism has set in, with the public option's chances waning and looking to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.
A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might to be adventurous, there is a natural appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers" by surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger loses some of his or her own credibility.
As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for an impartial realization of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.
Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Analysis of another blog in my field, for inspiration and direction: FiveThirtyEight.com
Assignment for Aug. 31
In a political world increasingly defined by polling numbers and electoral struggles, FiveThirtyEight.com provides a statistics-based blog on goings-on both inside and outside the Beltway. Nate Silver, who started as a career baseball statistician, now uses his powers to predict (with great accuracy) the results of elections, check the accuracy of polling and other meters of public opinion, and just generally break down every political question to numbers and regression models to take a stab of measuring the otherwise immeasurable.
FiveThirtyEight rose to prominence during the 2008 election and the year running up to it, rising from a relatively unknown corner of the net to the 57th-ranked blog on technorati.com, an amazingly quick ascent. During the 2008 election season, Silver posted a few times daily, often more, aggregating polling results on the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as providing commentary for any current developments. In recent months, though, his personal posting rate has fallen to several updates per week, with supplemental content provided by a few other bloggers who have a similar statistical bent. Between calculating the Democratic primary results and eventually nailing the popular vote spread (52.4%-46.3% predicted, compared to 52.3%-46.2% actual), Silver has earned his credibility with consistent results and an eye for effectively weighing the day-to-day developments in politics. In this post of Nate Silver’s final election projections on the morning of November 4th, he explains not just what he thinks the numbers will be, but why:
Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically -- for instance, assigns North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time -- comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.
We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidaees with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.
Far more wonkish posts outline the exact models used, showing the probability of each state being won by each candidate. By building a foundation of rock-solid methodology, Silver can maintain both a casual tone at no cost to his professional reliability.
This simultaneous accessibility and credibility has brought him a vast, broad readership. He is referenced and linked to across the web, with his data analysis often considered something of a primary source. Because of his transparent calculation methods and well-documented models, Silver can defend his assumptions against other bloggers who, quite often, take issue with certain posts. He truly brings something new to the table, even though his work is based upon widely available data.
Besides election analysis, Silver, who leans left, has been keeping tabs on Obama's campaign promises as well as the ongoing health care debate. He still maintains a monthly list of which states are most likely to have a senate seat switch parties in the upcoming midterm elections, but he has certainly turned his eye to the ongoing policy battles with critical analysis of other bloggers' assertions as well as generating his own thoughtful graphics and theses.
In this gaping hole between election seasons, filled by the heated back-and-forth on health care, Silver’s mathematical commentary is welcome in a world of fiery misinformation and partisan attacks. His years of experience making a living off his statistical expertise show through in each post, compensating for minor details that others often overlook, paying off in consistency and credibility.
My blog, obviously, won’t have the statistical clout. I’m inspired, though, by his impartial data analysis used to bolster any ideological arguments made. Rational analysis of research to a logical conclusion is exactly what I’d like to shoot for.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Voice Critique
As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally a bit hostile. With an often sarcastic and sometimes condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.
While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia representative it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dearth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He takes the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and present the perfect people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
No comments:
Post a Comment