Image of black car seat with orange seat belt across the middle

July 7, 2026

Time Machine: Buckling Up

Today, putting on a seat belt feels automatic. Most people get into a car and buckle up without really thinking about it, but that was not always the case. For years, seat belts were not ... Read Now >

News

2/5: Advocacy Ads: A Broadcast Veteran’s View

February 5, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

What do those in broadcasting have to say about the Tim Tebow ad?

Lee Salzberger

Lee Salzberger has a worked in the broadcast industry for 40 years. He has managed television station affiliates of CBS and ABC and, as a group head, has additional Fox responsibilities. Salzberger has served on the ABC Board of Affiliates and has taught television sales and programming at the University of North Texas for the past five years.

When Salzberger spoke with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks, he shared his insights into the advocacy ad discussion:

John Sparks
Lee, in the past, television stations and networks may have been reluctant to air commercials on policy issues such as abortion and gay rights. Why is that, Lee?

Lee Salzberger
Gee, I wish I could answer that question why. I think it’s the climate of the country, and I think the climate of the country has continued to grow and certainly is more liberal than it has been in the past with the present administration; and I don’t know that I would say that’s entirely the reason, but I think it’s certainly a big portion of it.

John Sparks
You have managed television stations. Are there standards that broadcasters adhere to in deciding whether to air commercials that one might describe as an advocacy spot?

Lee Salzberger
The individual stations really don’t have any particular kind of guidance in this particular issue. It is how they believe their licensed community might feel. But, as you said, John, this is a network commercial and although the network is not licensed by the federal government, the stations are and it’s up to the individual stations to determine whether or not they choose to individually or not telecast that particular commercial. In my judgment, it is likely that most of the television stations will likely telecast this commercial without reservation. It’s just another network commercial.

John Sparks
Do you think that this could set a precedent for advocacy ads in future Super Bowls?

Lee Salzberger
I don’t think it’s particularly precedent setting. I can’t at this very moment recall any particular ads that may have been advocacy involved in the past, but I at the same time don’t feel that this is anything that is so particularly out of bounds that it would have been so rattling to the cages of everybody.

John Sparks
You have sold television time. Any thoughts on the impact this ad might have?

Lee Salzberger
You know, John, if it sells, then it works. If it doesn’t sell, it’s not a good ad. I haven’t seen the ad; you haven’t seen it; nobody has seen it, to the best of my knowledge, broadcast yet, so I can’t really speak to whether or not it will be or is an effective presentation of the issue.

John Sparks
Is there anything else you’d like to add or clarify on the subject?

Lee Salzberger
No, John, other than the licensee, the individual station, by virtue of the Communications Act has the opportunity to accept or deny access to its microphone. I believe that’s the actual phrase. But you know, I just don’t see stations taking particular and specific action either for or against this particular ad. I think the network has done its due diligence in investigating the copy and probably investigating the visual elements of this. I don’t think they would telecast anything that was so extraordinary that would take the viewers into a total other area of belief without saying, “Hey, it’s just an ad, and we’ll take care of the other side through other opportunities from the standpoint of equal opportunity.”

Related Stories:

2/5: Advocacy Ads: The Lasting Impact?

2/5: Advocacy Ads During the Super Bowl? Public Okays Tebow Ad

2/5: Advocacy Ads: The Lasting Impact?

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Peggy Wehmeyer was the national religion correspondent for ABC-TV. She spoke with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks on possible effects of the Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family Super Bowl Commercial.

John Sparks
Peggy, while there’ve been television commercials aired by Pro-Life groups in the past, there hasn’t really been such a precedent to air one during a national broadcast that would attract 90-million viewers like the Super Bowl. With CBS’ decision to accept the ad, do you think that we might see more of this sort of ad placement in the future?

Peggy Wehmeyer
I think unless CBS changes its position after this based on the outcry to the ad that they’re getting, sure, I would expect we’ll see more of these kinds of ads in the future. I mean, look at all the publicity it’s getting, which might actually be good for CBS. If anyone who had forgotten over the last few years who Focus on the Family was, they’re now back on the radar screen, and I would imagine their donations will even go up as a result of this, so I would think so.

John Sparks
What would you say the pros and cons are for Focus on the Family about running such an ad?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think the pros will be, as I mentioned, that it puts them back on the radar screen. They’re an activist organization. They want this kind of attention especially on social issues like abortion. So for the people who have supported Focus on the Family in the past, this is going to be evidence that “Oh, they’re still doing some — they’re still stirring up the waters. They’re still doing what we used to support them for doing,” and it might actually engender more dedication to this group. My guess is, and I’m not certain, but there’s probably — they have less support than they used to, so maybe this will be a good thing from their point of view. On the other hand, it will make their so-called enemies of the people who have never liked what Focus on the Family stands for. It will probably harden their positions against them, but that might actually help Focus on the Family also because that’s part of how they fundraise.

John Sparks
So do you think that they run the risk of drawing more negative attention than positive on this thing?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think Focus on the Family would hope to use Tim Tebow’s celebrity status to sway people who might be in the middle on the abortion issue, and I think that’s where most people are. So from Focus on the Family’s perspective, I think for them it might be a positive thing. Politically, it puts them in the position from the less point of view, at least, of being troublemakers.

John Sparks
Do you think that there is some yardstick measure that they might use to determine if the Tebow ad is successful?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think it’s very hard to measure whether this ad is successful if it runs. And I guess it depends on how you define success. Did you define it by saying, “Did it stop women from getting abortions?” Perhaps you could do some kind of scientific poll with those who saw the ad and ask them whether it changed their views on abortion. I doubt actually it will. Most likely, I would expect it to strengthen people’s support of groups like Focus on the Family who sponsored the ad or create an even greater backlash against these kinds of groups. You could measure … one way you could measure is whether donations to Focus on the Family, which sponsored the ad, are up or maybe donations to Pro-Life groups went up. I mean you could look at that, I suppose.

John Sparks
I’ve heard a report that suggests that more viewers of the Super Bowl over the years remember the ads than they do even the teams or the scores of a particular Super Bowl. If that’s indeed true, what kind of impact do you think the Tebow ad might have for Focus on the Family and the Pro-Life movement?

Peggy Wehmeyer
Well, it’s really hard to pinpoint what the impact of this ad will be. Sure there’s a chance. There’s a chance it might make a young pregnant girl think about having an abortion. It might make her change her mind about an abortion. It will make Pro-Choice people even more adamant that they get their message out. It might really ramp up the whole abortion debate. Mostly I think the Tim Tebow ad will fuel, unfortunately, the culture war battle lines over abortion. But you know these things don’t last for long because they die down after awhile, so I don’t anticipate that it will have any real long-term impact.

John Sparks
So do you think with CBS accepting the ad that NARAL and other groups might seek to buy time in next year’s Super Bowl or the World Series or the Final Four?

Peggy Wehmeyer
Sure. I think women’s groups and other liberal groups will shout and protest about this airing of the ad; and if they don’t win their campaign to stop it from getting on CBS and CBS airs it anyway, it wouldn’t really surprise me if they take the tact: Well if you can’t beat them, join them, and then we’ll have dueling ads. But I doubt CBS is going to let that or any other network would let that get out of hand.

John Sparks
Speaking of getting out of hand, if we could envision commercial breaks at national sporting events becoming cluttered with advocacy ads, do you think that the networks might reverse this position? CBS kind of put it out there in accepting this ad. It’s kind of a first for a national ad buy like this.

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think CBS and the networks have control over their advertising space. There are too many other advertisers who are not advocating social issues that are clamoring for air time. I doubt commercial breaks will be cluttered with advocacy ads. The public would hate it, and it wouldn’t help the network, and the network will always do what is in its best interest.

2/5: Advocacy Ads During the Super Bowl? Public Okays Tebow Ad

1/21: “Traveling In a World of Heightened Security”

January 21, 2010 | by Marist Poll

I live in Florida, and it’s awesome! However, being a film/TV production guy, I often travel for work. When that travel involves flying, I always get a little antsy, especially now since airport security screenings have gotten even tougher in light of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253.

Chad Carter

Let me say upfront that I don’t really fear terrorists like the “underwear bomber,” but rather, it’s the Transportation Security Administration that scares me senseless. Being caught unprepared for security screenings keeps me awake at night, and I avoid it like the plague.

The Air Transport Association reports that roughly 10% fewer people fly in January than in December (and, that’s without an attempted terror attack). A USA Today/Gallup Poll, conducted earlier this month, also finds that 27% of frequent fliers are more likely than in the past to find some other means of travel rather than flying to avoid the inconveniences. But even with fewer passengers, new security measures will undoubtedly slow the screening process. If passengers are unprepared, it will grind to a halt.

In fact, according to the TSA, the administration screened about 708 million travelers in 2006 (the most current numbers on the website…hmmm). From those travelers, they confiscated about 14 million prohibited items. That’s one item for every 50 people. Even in an example, I don’t want to be that guy.

So, anytime I fly, my goal is to navigate TSA security as efficiently as possible. And, it all begins when you book your ticket. Not only are most airports empty at mid-morning on Tuesdays, flights are generally less expensive. If you can schedule travel during the week instead of on weekends, your travels will be easier. I usually can get through the TSA screening line without breaking stride.

Knowing what to expect at the airport is also very important. Be sure to double-check that you’ve followed TSA guidelines when preparing for your trip.

But, a little practical knowledge never hurt anyone. Here’s my usual plan once I check in and head to security:

1. After getting my ID and boarding pass checked, my laptop computer goes in the first plastic bin, I do not remove it from its protective neoprene case (the TSA no longer requires you to do so). My backpack (aka personal item which will fit under the seat in front of you,) goes on the conveyer belt next.

2. Shoes, belt, and jacket/sweater go in the second tub. The key to expediting this process is taking off your jacket/sweater while simultaneously stepping out of your shoes. Practice at home if you feel you may lose your balance and embarrass yourself.

3. If you carry a second bag (this one is your actual “carry on”, and goes in the overhead compartment), it waits patiently on the floor next to you until, barefoot and beltless, you place it on the conveyer belt just moments before the TSA screener motions you through the metal detector.

There are various things that will impede this streamlined process. (To the blonde lady of medium height at Jacksonville International Airport who didn’t realize that her Sam’s-Club-sized bottle of Suave conditioner didn’t meet the 3.4oz requirement and felt the need to argue about it, I am talking to YOU.)

The only way to avoid getting tripped up by these amateur travelers is to carefully pre-screen your fellow passengers during check-in and while in the security line. People who do not have their IDs in hand, or who fail to extract a crisp boarding pass on the first dive into their overflowing shoulder bag are prime suspects and should be avoided! If at all possible, try to skip ahead of them in line without drawing attention to yourself.

These tactics will help you navigate TSA security in a timelier manner. If nothing else, they will keep you from being like the blonde in Jacksonville – or the rest of us who were stuck behind her.

This article is written by Chad Carter who assists The Marist Poll with video production.

1/20: GOP Upset: Could New York Be Next?

January 20, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

In the aftermath of Scott Brown’s stunning upset win in Massachusetts, Democrats around the nation are at best re-evaluating the political landscape. At worse, panic has set in. New York, one of the bluest of the blue states, is no exception. Democrats currently hold all statewide elected positions in the state… governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, the two U.S. Senate seats, as well as both chambers of the state legislature in Albany. All of these seats are being contested in 2010. Ironically, only U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer and NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo were actually elected statewide to the positions they currently hold.

Lee Miringoff

There are probably more questions than answers raised by Massachusetts. Topping the list of Democratic concerns in New York is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She was appointed by an unelected, unpopular governor to fill the term of Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand’s approval rating lags in the mid-twenties. The upside: she enjoys the strong backing of Senator Schumer and the White House. But, is she vulnerable to an anti-establishment appeal of former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford? And, what about the GOP candidate in November? Rudy Giuliani , the strongest potential challenger, has opted not to run. Former Governor George Pataki remains on the bench without telegraphing his intentions. The only announced GOPer is Bruce Blakeman. Not exactly a household name. But, then again, Scott Brown certainly wasn’t either.

Senator Schumer also faces the electorate this fall. His approval rating has ebbed in recent months from 58% in Mid-September to 54% in November to its current level of 51%. No challengers have come forward as yet. Might someone be encouraged by the Massachusetts result? (The only sad Republicans in Massachusetts are those who thought the race was not winnable and stayed on the sideline.)

The view from Albany is just as murky. Democrat Andrew Cuomo is likely to challenge David Paterson for governor. Cuomo is the most popular of the statewide crowd. But, he would have to walk the fine line between demonstrating he has the experience to be effective while not appearing too close to the dysfunction that has poisoned voters’ views of state government. The best known on the GOP potential line-up for governor is former Congressman Rick Lazio who last was on the political scene in his failed run against Hillary Clinton in 2000 for the U.S. Senate. The other positions and candidates are still too far below the radar screen to garner much interest.

So, what conclusions can be drawn at this point? Not unlike Massachusetts, Democrats far outnumber Republicans in New York State. But, the proportion of independent voters which has fueled recent GOP victories in Obama-won states… New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts… is not as big a factor in New York as elsewhere. Score one for the Democrats.

Obama’s approval rating in New York is 56%. In and of itself, he is not likely to be a drag for the Democratic slate here in 2010. Score two for the Democrats. But, then again, he was popular in Massachusetts and certainly couldn’t deliver in the closing innings. And, by definition, as the Democratic incumbent, he makes this the off-year election for his party nationwide. Score one for the GOP.

The energy and enthusiasm Democrats enjoyed over Republicans with voters just one year ago has now dissipated. Score two for the GOP.

The Democrats have bigger marquee candidates with bigger bank accounts than their potential challengers. Advantage Democrats. But, the Democrats are also now the incumbents with an unhappy, change oriented electorate. Advantage GOP.

Who will win out? That’s now the biggest question coming out of Massachusetts.

1/15: The Best Laid Plans…

January 15, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Kirsten Gillibrand and Harold Ford Jr. are improbable rivals for the U.S. Senate seat held only recently by Hillary Clinton. But, then again, Hillary Clinton was inevitably White House bound and Governor Spitzer was thought to be considering then Lieutenant Governor David Paterson to fill her unexpired senate term. Okay. So, things don’t always work out as planned.

Lee Miringoff

Now, the Obama White House seems bent on chasing away any would-be Gillibrand challengers. So far, the strategy has been successful. At least until former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. entered the picture. But, what do New York Democratic voters think about all of this? In the latest Marist Poll, Gillibrand has the early lead with 43% to 24% for Ford. A full 33% are undecided.

Gillibrand is not particularly strong. Her approval rating statewide lags at 24%. She remains an unelected incumbent, picked by an unelected, unpopular governor. Ford is largely unknown to New Yorkers and apparently doesn’t know New York too well either. His comment that he has only seen the five New York City boroughs from a helicopter is the local equivalent of Sarah Palin’s claim to be able to see Russia from Alaska.

Both Gillibrand and Ford have a big strategic obstacle to overcome in order to run successfully statewide in New York. Gillibrand no longer represents a conservative upstate New York congressional district. Ford, a newcomer to New York, brings with him a voting record and campaign positions from Tennessee. Both have a lot of work to do in convincing New York Democrats that their views are compatible with this more liberal electorate. They both have a lot of ground to cover. Yet to be defined as flip-floppers, each can legitimately be accused of tailoring their positions to the electorate they now face. Had Darwin advanced a political theory of evolution, it would serve as a convenient reference for this 2010 senate race.

Miringoff discusses how the two relatively unknown candidates will try to win over New Yorkers:

The Future of Technology and Journalism

December 18, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Sree Sreenivasan is the Dean of Student Affairs at the Columbia University School of Journalism and a contributing editor to DNAinfo. In an interview with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks, Sreenivasan discusses the advent of social networking, training journalists so that they’re equipped for the digital world, and why blogs and traditional news sites can coexist.

John Sparks
Sree, the Marist Institute recently conducted a poll on technology. We asked U.S. residents if they had a profile on the social networking site like MySpace, Facebook, or LinkedIn. 59% of the American public said, “No, they did not.” Do you think that more folks will in the future?

Sree Sreenivasan (Photo by Joseph Lin)

Sree Sreenivasan
I believe you’ll see many more people joining social networking websites as they understand the value of it. I teach in my classes that this is radio in 1912. This is TV in 1950. And it’d be as if we were polling at that time, and as we know, television would evolve in a hundred different ways after that, and I imagine the same amount of changes that we’ve seen in TV in the last half a century, we’re going to see in the next few years in social media.

John Sparks
One thing that we hear a lot about these days is Twitter, and the Marist Institute also asked folks if they personally had a Twitter account.

Sree Sreenivasan
I can’t wait to hear this answer.

John Sparks
92% said “No.” Does that say that most Americans think it’s absurd to share their every waking minute with the rest of the world, or do they just not understand what a Twitter account really is?

Sree Sreenivasan
It might be a combination of both. And it would… If they… I don’t know if you asked also how many people considered having one and decided not to have it, or how many have actually heard of Twitter itself as opposed to actually have an account. Twitter, again, this is so early in its days that I remember many of the conversations that we had about email, where you had about faxes, we had about Web sites. One of my really good friends, I said, “You must have a Web site.” And he said, “Are you kidding? Who’s going to care what I’ve done? And why would I need a profile on the Web?” And now he loves his Web site so … and this is the… even other people I know who hated the idea of using email because they loved writing, now can’t get — can’t stop sending me email. So this is all slow processes. People understand what is going — what is worth their time and energy and what is not. We should also keep in mind that I’m — and when we teach, we don’t focus on specific tools or specific companies. People ask me: “Is Twitter going to be here for the next 20 years?” I said, “I don’t know. If I knew that, I’d be a good predictor or person able to predict things.” But what I do know is the idea of this micro blogging, which is what Twitter does, is going to be around for a long time.

John Sparks
You know one thing we read a lot about and hear a lot about concerns technology and personal relationships. We asked if technology made those personal relationships better or worse, and 38% of the respondents said it improved their personal relationships, 6% said no, but more than half, 56%, said that it made no difference. Do you think … what kind of effect do you think technology has on personal relationships?

Sree Sreenivasan
I’m sorry to kind of come back to you with a question, but …

John Sparks
Sure.

Sree Sreenivasan
Was this people who already had accounts or people who … were these people who had said, “Yes, they have a Facebook account or …”

John Sparks
Did not distinguish in this instance.

Sree Sreenivasan
Ah okay. So I guess your question was: Has technology affected people’s lives or their relationships?

John Sparks
Yeah, their personal relationships.

Sree Sreenivasan
I think that the rise of email, social media, Facebook has had a tremendous impact on the lives, everyday lives of people. It depends on folks who have access to the technology. Right here in New York, we have a lot of people who are off the grid, so to speak, because they have a lot of other issues in their lives that they need to deal with rather than are they digital haves. You know, the conversation about digital haves or have-nots with the digital divide. But among the people who are online, I’m a big believer that all this technology has had an impact. Imagine how many more people are able to share the photograph of their children with their — with the grandparents in a way that they couldn’t before or imagine how much of an impact this kind of media has had on keeping in touch with family members, with friends from high school, et cetera. Now just because I can keep in touch with everybody from high school doesn’t mean I want to keep in touch with everybody from high school, but that general sense of kind of tremendous impact that this has had, and I can give you a couple of examples if we have the time.

John Sparks
Sure.

Sree Sreenivasan
And one is that I went to give a talk to Columbia Alumni in Naples, Florida, and this was a room filled with people, be fair to say about the age of 70. These were retired folks, most of them. And they were all there either because they were already on Facebook or curious about it because they want to use it to keep in touch with their friends and family, and I always understood that the problem about Facebook was teenagers and people in their 20’s worried that their mothers want to be their friends on Facebook. But at this event, a lady in her 70’s said that she was newly single and was worried about her daughter, her daughter, keeping tabs on her via Facebook. And so when you think that this is something that’s always … I always thought it went up as a problem in terms of generation, but here was a 70-something worried about the 40-something keeping tabs on her. So this is where we’re kind of seeing a change in how people deal with information, how they’re interacting, how they’re sharing. But it’s still early, and we’re going to continue to watch that evolve.

John Sparks
Do you think the technology has helped us to become more socially adept or do you think it’s isolated us into our own little worlds?

Sree Sreenivasan
Right. So you should know that I am a technology evangelist with a lower case “e,” but I’m also a skeptic. So obviously you know my bias is I’m pro technology. I believe technology in the long run makes things cheaper, better, faster. That doesn’t mean it does that to every single thing and doesn’t mean that you can’t get isolated, as we’ve seen with some of this technology. We’ve seen people addicted in a way that they — at the expense of everything else, they spend their time doing whatever it is online. But at the same time, I can give you any number of stories about how people have been affected in a positive way. And we should also acknowledge that journalists like stories of problems rather than kind of grandma connects with young grandson over email and they’re sharing his homework projects. They’re doing homework together on the Internet. Boring story. Young kid allegedly cyber-stalked and bullied by someone online story, that’s part of kind of journalism in itself and how it looks, unfortunately, at the news. And despite all the bad news you see about technology on the front page of the paper or on TV, I believe that the vast majority of the Internet is at worst kind of harmless, or it’s not a problem. But of course there are pockets of problems, and people should really be vigilant, skeptical, careful, but that’s not the message that the media sends out.

John Sparks
You teach journalism at Columbia. I teach journalism at the University of North Texas. Convergence is — some people say it’s the future. I say it’s the present. But I’m just curious, are you teaching technology, or do you concentrate on technique in using that technology?

Sree Sreenivasan
I tell students that we have to teach — that they have — journalists need to learn two things: New Media or digital media skill set. They need to have a digital media skill set and a digital media mindset, and anybody can teach you the skill set. Your 12-year-old nephew can teach you that or niece can you teach that. But what we — you need is that mindset so you understand how to deal with technology and how to use it and how to respond to the kind of upheaval that it’s causing all around us, and that’s not something … because I’m not going to be there to help them push the buttons the rest of their life. But you and I as teachers if we can teach them to think about technology, understand what works and what doesn’t, how to be both evangelist and the skeptic, I think they’ll have a very good future. One of my colleagues here, Sig Gissler, who runs the Pulitzer Prize Program, he coined a word called “the tradigital journalist,” that is the traditional journalist with a digital overlay, and that’s what we tell people you need to be.

John Sparks
Technology has no doubt had its effect on the news business — newspaper circulation has shrunk, papers are in trouble, so are television stations. Is there a future for students studying journalism these days?

Sree Sreenivasan
Well you know our applications last year were up 40%, which was kind of stunning to a lot of people. But I got to say what it is is that young people are incredibly optimistic. They feel that they are seeing more journalism being done around us than ever before, more entrepreneurship, more savvy about the world, and more interest in the world, and they’re optimistic in a way that old fogies like us are not.

John Sparks
You know some people might say that the problem is the business model. Newspapers have been giving away their products online. Is it hard to put the genie back in the bottle once you’ve let it out? In other words, will newspapers be able to start charging for online content and thus be able to survive do you think?

Sree Sreenivasan
Well, the newspaper question is a hard one. I’m a big believer in print, and I subscribe to two daily newspapers and five magazines. I think there’s still something magical about it, and I believe that for the immediate future there is still — newspapers aren’t dead yet, but there are some certainly that are dying and some are going to evolve and make it through and others are not. God bless them, they’ve got do all they can, and we need a bunch of different efforts, a bunch of different projects and experiments. Nobody has the answer. And you interview five pundits, they’ll tell you five different things that they know for sure about what works and what doesn’t, and what I say is if we knew for sure, then we wouldn’t all be sitting here having to have these conversations.

John Sparks
Sure. What about television with DVRs? Can television news survive? What can television do to survive as an advertising-based medium?

Sree Sreenivasan
Well television is also trying in different ways, and I think again, there needs to be a lot of efforts in different kinds of storytelling, different kinds of engagement with the audience, different efforts that haven’t necessarily been tried, and I make the analogy that this is kind of bottom of the eighth in a … you know, you and I are watching the World Series and we see players who take pitch after pitch instead of making — taking a swing, right.

John Sparks
Right.

Sree Sreenivasan
And I want journalists to take a swing. Don’t just stand there because then you — all you’re doing is complaining: Gee, this has happened to me. Oh, woe is me. Well I ask them, “How tradigital are you? Do you have a new media skill set? Do you have a new media mindset?” “No.” “Well, you’re going to be in trouble.”

John Sparks
Is our democracy at stake in a society in which people do not read, don’t watch television news, don’t listen to the news on the radio?

Sree Sreenivasan
Look, I would say that there are millions of people who don’t do any of those things already, and you don’t need every single person to be invested in every single area or every single pillar of society for it to be useful. What you need are people who are invested, a large proportion who are invested and care and all of that stuff, and as long as that happens, that’s fine. Not everybody needs to be engaged. It’d be great if everybody was, but that’s not going to happen.

John Sparks
You know another thing we hear about is with the technology the ability…

Sree Sreenivasan
By the way, the comparison I would make is to voting. I mean, wouldn’t it be great if we had the same voting turnout as they do in Sri Lanka, 75, 80%? We don’t. You can’t force people to be engaged. People sometimes don’t care, and they leave it to others. It’s those others that need to make sure that they’re engaged.

John Sparks
Absolutely. You know we also hear about this business about tailoring our content, our own likes and dislikes, and the ability to do that with technology. Does that prevent us from being informed about important issues which we need to know about, and how do you overcome that problem?

Sree Sreenivasan
In what terms exactly do you mean?

John Sparks
Well, there’s all the talk about how broadcasters, newspaper publishers, journalists talk about tailoring content, how the consumer can tailor their content online so that they just view or read topics that are of interest to them and block out all the rest. My question really is: Does that ability prevent us from being informed about important issues which we need to know about it?

Sree Sreenivasan
Sure. You’re talking about something that we’ve been discussing for years, the idea of kind of creating your own newspaper or …

John Sparks
Right.

Sree Sreenivasan
There are various different versions of this. Google has a section where you can personalize Google News. What I like about that particular thing is you can personalize it so I’m getting only important stuff, such as Britney Spears, Balloon Boy, or whatever. And, John, I know that’s what you love.

John Sparks
(Inaudible) …

Sree Sreenivasan
But, but they also force you to read what they think are the top important stories according to the Google algorithm. And I think, let people drill down and be as specific as they want, but force them to do a little bit on the top, and I think you’ll be fine. And we’ll see. By the way, this idea of personalizing everything, people are too lazy to actually do it on a regular basis.

John Sparks
There’s a difference of course between blogs laced with opinion and stories written about so-called citizen journalists who have no training in fact-finding or attribution. There’s a difference between that and objective reporting of folks that are trained in journalism. Does the public understand the difference and … do you think … are they able discern and make the distinction?

Sree Sreenivasan
I think that people understand — as somebody who cares deeply about professional journalism, we’re charging students who come here to get a Master’s Degree in Journalism — that there’s an immense value in professional journalists, in people who know the topic well, are able to interpret, analyze, explain, et cetera, but at the same time, I learn an incredible amount of information from amateurs who care deeply about a certain topic. Traditionally in journalism, experts have been professors with diplomas on their wall and tweed jackets and patches on their elbows and things like that, and that is one way to provide expertise is going to people like that. But expertise also comes from just passion and knowledge and working in a certain field, and those people have a lot to contribute in discussions on that particular field. There’s so many blogs that I read on a regular basis. I believe, by the way, and this is controversial for a boring professor like me to say, but in every area of the human interest there is a blog and a Twitter feed that journalists and others need to read because the blog and/or the Twitter feed are approaching in importance the traditional mainstream media outlet that dealt with that topic. And that doesn’t mean it’s supplanting, it’s the only source, but it needs to be … we need to change our media diet to be open to these other tools, these other, not just tools, but also these other sources of information.

John Sparks
Absolutely. I could go on and talk to you all day about this because it’s my bread and butter and my passion as well, but I know that you have a busy calendar. In fact, I’ve seen your online calendar, and I must say trying to navigate that sometimes to get an appointment like this is challenging sometimes for those of us that who are maybe not as technologically adept as we should be.

Sree Sreenivasan
My Twitter account is twitter.com/sreenet, S-R-E-E-N-E-T, and I’d love to carry on this conversation with others if they’re interested.

John Sparks
Is there anything else that you’d like to add before we call a conclusion to our interview?

Sree Sreenivasan
I would just … yeah, I think we’re all we’re concluding is the physical time we’ve got for this. The future is to be determined and that’s what’s so exciting, and it’s hard for people in their 40’s and 50’s and 60’s who have a mortgage and all of that, but young people have tremendous optimism, tremendous energy and just — that’s why you and I teach because we work and these people keep you — give you a level of excitement that is very hard to come across ourselves, I think.

Related Stories:

12/18: The Twitter “Craze:” Not So Much

12/18: Social Networks Grow in Popularity Among U.S. Residents

12/18: Technology’s Impact on Relationships

This Is Your Brain on Social Networks … Any Questions?

| by Marist Poll

Have you ever fallen into a tech-hole?

You’re sitting at your computer, logged into your Facebook, Twitter and other social networking accounts, immersed in the links, videos, comments and other digital flotsam shooting down the info streams. Meanwhile, a person, real flesh and blood, walks in the room and wants your attention. You don’t hear his words; you mindlessly wave him away. You’re busy … with your virtual friends.

Perhaps that’s never happened to you. As for me, I’ve spent a serious number of hours in the tech-hole. Based on a recent Marist poll, the number of Web users with social networking accounts, and perhaps susceptible to this experience, is growing rapidly. This furious growth has led some to question whether the effects of spending so much time on Facebook, Twitter and their ilk could be harmful.

In the U.K., neuroscientist Susan Greenfield took her concerns about social networks to the House of Lords, suggesting that the use of the sites could affect the human brain — especially a child’s brain — in profound ways. One of her more frightening points was that using the sites could yield a generation of grown-ups with the emotional depth and cognitive abilities of big babies. The social networks provide experiences that are “devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance,” said Greenfield. “As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.” Among other things, she called for an investigation into whether the overuse of screen technologies could be linked to a recent spike in diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. People who spend formative years surfing the Internet, an environment characterized by “fast action and reaction,” could come to expect similar instant gratification in the non-virtual world, said Greenfield.

Her concerns have probably resonated with Web skeptics because she’s homed in on recognizably annoying online behavior. For example, if you’ve ever been irritated when a friend updates his or her status message to broadcast a favorite kind of toothpaste – e.g., “[Person X] is contemplating the different colors of AquaFresh” — Greenfield sympathizes. “Now what does this say about how you see yourself?” she asks of those prone to posting personal trivia. “Does this say anything about how secure you feel about yourself? Is it not marginally reminiscent of a small child saying ‘Look at me, look at me mummy! Now I’ve put my sock on. Now I’ve got my other sock on.'”

Not everyone is receptive to Greenfield’s concerns. Ben Goldacre, a British writer, broadcaster and doctor, and author of a Guardian column called Bad Science, says Greenfield is irresponsibly using her position as head of the Royal Institution of Great Britain — a body devoted to improving the public’s knowledge of science — because she doesn’t have any empirical evidence backing up her fears. If Greenfield wants to promote awareness of the scientific method, says Goldacre, she shouldn’t be spending so much time airing her qualms about untested hypotheses. Greenfield’s caveats that her purpose is to raise questions, not give answers, aren’t enough for Goldacre; he says she’s recklessly generating scary headlines that frighten a Web-loving populace. “It makes me quite sad,” he writes, “when the public’s understanding of science is in such a terrible state, that this is one of our most prominent and well funded champions.” In a heated BBC debate on the social networking controversy, you can see Goldacre square off against Dr. Aric Sigman, who says we should be wary about the time we spend in front of screens subtracting from the time we spend talking to people.

Despite the squabbling, it’s probably safe to say that thinkers on both sides of the issue would agree that more research is needed. To that end, various studies and polls have been published on the social networks in particular and increased Web use in general. For example, the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future reported that households connected to the Internet were experiencing less “face-to-face family time, increased feelings of being ignored by family members using the Web, and growing concerns that children are spending too much time online.” On the other hand, a poll conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that use of cell phones and the Internet has not, generally speaking, contributed to social isolation (I urge you to view their conclusions for a much more precise explanation).

In the meantime, the tech-hole always beckons, so much so that Web addiction treatment centers have emerged to help people who can’t prioritize the real world over the virtual one. While weighing in on the controversy, Maggie Jackson, the author of “Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age,” offers this advice to Web users: “Going forward, we need to rediscover the value of digital gadgets as tools, rather than elevating them to social and cognitive panacea. Lady Greenfield is right: we need to grow up and take a more mature approach to our tech tools.” In other words, technology exists to support our relations with other human beings, not replace them.

In theory, it’s easy to remember that. In practice, we might find ourselves sacrificing hours to the digital ether, convincing ourselves that we’re connected to everyone, but in reality being connected to no one.

Related Stories:

12/18: The Twitter “Craze:” Not So Much

12/18: Social Networks Grow in Popularity Among U.S. Residents

12/18: Technology’s Impact on Relationships

The Future of Technology and Journalism

Video: Gillibrand Could Be Vulnerable

November 24, 2009 | by Marist Poll

The Marist Poll’s Lee Miringoff says that after this year’s strong showing, the New York GOP could be looking to knock Gillibrand and other Democrats out of office:

11/23: Rudy Giuliani…What If?

November 23, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

What if Rudy Giuliani decides to challenge Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand for U.S. Senate? According to the Marist Poll, Giuliani would start the race as the morning line favorite against New York’s junior senator. Giuliani leads Gillibrand by 14 percentage points. But, let’s drill down in the numbers to find out why.

Lee Miringoff

Rudy Giuliani gets a nod from a notable 48% of his former New York City constituents compared with 45% who support Gillibrand. No laughing matter for any Democrat running statewide, and especially for the former upstate Congresswoman. Gillibrand has had difficulty connecting with traditionally Democratic downstate voters with her prior pro-gun positions, vote in support of the Iraq War, and her stand on amnesty for illegal immigrants. Not surprisingly, upstate, she fares decently for a Democrat, attracting 42% of the vote. But, in the pivotal suburbs surrounding New York City, Giuliani clobbers Gillibrand by nearly 2 to 1. Can Giuliani overcome the huge registration advantage for Democrats in New York State? He currently receives support from 33% of these voters.

Now, what is unusual about a potential Giuliani-Gillibrand matchup is that the incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand, unlike the challenger, is still largely unknown to many New Yorkers. 24% of voters statewide don’t know enough about her to voice an opinion. With so many New York voters still on the fence, her approval rating statewide is a measly 25%…. certainly a target for team Giuliani.

There is a gender gap in the numbers as well. Gillibrand trails Giuliani by 24 percentage points among men but breaks almost even among women. Giuliani will need to tread lightly on this one lest he create a Lazio-Clinton backlash… which occurred in the 2000 U.S. Senate campaign when Lazio bullied Clinton during a debate.

Several additional factors would make this a race to watch. 2010 is not shaping up at present as a banner year for Democrats nationally. Will New York Democrats be immune from this trend?

What about Giuliani’s public image? He is well known to voters as a can-do executive type. Will he be able, during a campaign, to convince enough New Yorkers that he can be effective in a consensus building, collegial, legislative arena?

And, what impact will the trial of the five accused 9-11 plotters in the shadow of Ground Zero have on the issue agenda for this campaign? Will candidate Giuliani be able to rekindle voters’ memories of him as “America’s Mayor” in a world that still has its extremist unrest?

Rudy Giuliani hasn’t won in the voting booth since 1997….a long-time in political years. If he still harbors presidential aspirations, a victory in New York over Kirsten Gillibrand, capturing the Senate seat only recently held by Hillary Clinton, would catapult him into the national spotlight.

11/19: Carving Out a New Political Path?

November 19, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

The shock waves resulting from Rudy Giuliani’s decision not to run for governor in New York State in 2010 are most immediate in Albany but they are also being felt as far south as Washington, D.C. Giuliani may have recognized that the road to the Executive Mansion could have been blocked by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Giuliani trails Cuomo by 10 percentage points in today’s Marist Poll.

Lee Miringoff

But, what if this executive can-do former NYC mayor decides to join the legislative branch and make a run for U.S. Senate instead? Here, his prospects are far brighter. In a matchup against New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Giuliani leads her by 54% to 40%. A Senate win for Giuliani in this heavily Democratic state would be a huge national story. It would also be an equally huge embarrassment for the Obama White House. It could even rekindle any hopes Giuliani has about another presidential run.

Rudy Giuliani is a marquee name in GOP circles in New York. But, if he harbors any presidential aspirations, he needs to win something. His last electoral success was his re-election as NYC mayor in 1997… a lifetime ago in politics. His on-again, off-again campaign in 2000 and his truncated run for the White House in 2008 raise serious doubts about his electoral viability.

Yet, this may turn out to be a stroke of political acumen for team Rudy. A decision by Giuliani to run for the U.S. Senate may ultimately shake things up nationally as much as his decision to pull out of the race for governor has altered the political landscape in Albany.