October 2013

Try finding Washington’s off switch. Today’s technological dependency presents fresh challenges to a decades-old law that bars furloughed federal employees from doing any work, including with government-issued cellphones or work e-mails.

So if you’re still checking your BlackBerry, you’re not the only one. The last time the government shut down nearly two decades ago, managers communicated through memos and phones belonged on desks. Employees now work just as much outside the office and can access critical information in the grocery checkout line. Government staff — facing an unknown amount of unpaid free time — are finding it difficult to disconnect. Some admit to peeking at messages, directing colleagues to a personal email account or using their time off from work as a chance to catch up on it. Those without the luxury of multiple phones or a home laptop worry simply about reaching others. The complications raise the question: Is it a ban that no longer makes sense or just not in hyperwired Washington?

[Commentary] US news reports are largely blaming the government shutdown on the inability of both political parties to come to terms. It is supposedly the result of a "bitterly divided" Congress that "failed to reach agreement" (Washington Post) or "a bitter budget standoff" left unresolved by "rapid-fire back and forth legislative maneuvers" (New York Times). This sort of false equivalence is not just a failure of journalism. It is also a failure of democracy. When the political leadership of this country is incapable of even keeping the government open, a political course correction is in order. But how can democracy self-correct if the public does not understand where the problem lies? And where will the pressure for change come from if journalists do not hold the responsible parties accountable?

The truth of what happened, as almost all political reporters know full well, is that "Republicans staged a series of last-ditch efforts to use a once-routine budget procedure to force Democrats to abandon their efforts to extend U.S. health insurance." (Thank you, Guardian.) And holding the entire government hostage while demanding the de facto repeal of a president's signature legislation and not even bothering to negotiate is by any reasonable standard an extreme political act. It is an attempt to make an end run around the normal legislative process. There is no historical precedent for it. The last shutdowns, in 1995 and 1996, were not the product of unilateral demands to scrap existing law; they took place during a period of give-and-take budget negotiations. But the political media's aversion to doing anything that might be seen as taking sides — combined with its obsession with process — led them to actively obscure the truth in their coverage of the votes. If you did not already know what this was all about, reading the news would not help you understand.

[Froomkin is launching the Center for Accountability Journalism, at FearlessMedia.org]

New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson says she worries about the trivialization of politics by publications like Politico, but offered no defense when asked about the Times' own coverage of the political horse race. Speaking with The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta at The New Yorker Festival, Abramson said the incessant coverage of politics as sport threatened a larger understanding of how politics actually affects people.

While consumer trust of advertising seen on television, in magazines, on the radio and online has grown since 2007, nothing can top word-of-mouth recommendations from friends. That's according to a global study by Nielsen on trust in advertising and brand messages.

The Nielsen survey of more than 29,000 consumers in 58 countries worldwide, including in the US, found 84% saying they trust recommendations from friends-up from 78% in a similar survey done in 2007. Consumer opinions posted online were cited by 68% of those surveyed as being trustworthy, with TV ads getting a vote of confidence from 62%, up from 56% in 2007. Ads in newspapers were cited by 61% of consumers in the survey as being believable, but that was down slightly from the 63% who found them worth their salt in 2007. Ads in magazines were listed as trustworthy by 60% of respondents, up 4% from 2007; radio commercials were tabbed by 57%, also up 4% from 2007; commercials before movies were up a sizable 18% from 2007, selected this time by 56% of consumers surveyed; and online banner ads were deemed trustworthy by 42% of those surveyed, up 16%. Text ads on mobile phones also grew in believability, rising to 37% in this survey, a 19% increase from 2007.