Matt, Peter, and I had the pleasure of listening to Tom Reed, a veteran journalist who has covered conventions, among other things, for decades. He discussed the evolution of the media and Democratic and Republican national conventions.
Apparently, bloggers like us make journalism much harder. The Internet has led Americans to a "right now" attitude. We want to hear Obama's speech and read a story over it immediately after. We want commentary on it immediately after, but if we could get it simultaneously, even better. We want the best story with the best angle, and we don't want to wait for the next day. This makes a journalist's job very hard. Instead of wining and dining after the conventions and joking and having fun with the politicians, a journalist has to be the first (of thousands) to get a story out. This, of course, is no fun.
What else about this campaign brings out the "right now" attitude of Americans? Is it Obama's mantra of "Change we can believe in?" Do we really believe that "change" can happen with a simple shift of title? And really, does a president even have the POWER vested in his position to make all of these promised changes? Realistically, no president ever changes more than a handful of policies when he gets into office, and he usually has influential power but is not an agent of change.
So I wonder, and I will ask you: who is an agent of change? Is it a constituent, a legislature, or even a court of law? Technically the legislative branch (who represents the interests of its various constituencies), is granted this power by the Constitution, but think harder. Can Barack Obama change everything? I would be less apprehensive if his message was more realistic (and consequentially less dynamic): "The first small push toward change."
I realize that is less tantalizing. No wonder he has stuck with what he has.
That's all, San Antonio. -April Sanchez