Home of the Marist Poll | Polls, Analysis, Learning, and More

Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

2/11: The Winter Games: An Interview

February 11, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

The Winter Olympics come around once every four years, but how popular are the games today? Verne Lundquist is CBS Sports Play-By-Play Broadcaster who has covered the 1992, 1994, and 1998 games. And, in a candid interview with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks, he discusses this year’s competition, addresses the issue of steroid use, and shares some of his own memories covering the games.

Verne Lundquist

John Sparks
Verne, you worked through Winter Olympics in ’92/’94/’98, I believe, for the network and of course you followed the Winter and Summer games for years. Do you think that folks follow the Olympic events as much as they have in years past?

Verne Lundquist
I get a sense that they don’t follow them quite as much, and I think particularly that’s true of Vancouver that’s coming up. I don’t … I just sense a general lack of a buzz about the games. And I live in a ski resort and we’ve got 17 athletes who either live in Steamboat Springs or train in Steamboat Springs and even there where you would expect to have a lot of conversation about what’s going to happen in Vancouver, I don’t get that the sense that it’s that prominent on anybody’s radar.

John Sparks
What do you think is the reason for that?

Verne Lundquist
I don’t know. I really don’t know. There just seems to be a real lack of awareness that the Olympics are going to take place.

John Sparks
You know when I think of your covering the Olympics, I immediately think of figure skating, of course. Is figure skating the event that you like the most?

Verne Lundquist
Yeah, absolute. Yes, absolutely it was. I just accidently fell into that. I can vividly remember when we were awarded the Olympic Games at CBS in the late ’80s and our first one was going to be in 1992. And as I just mentioned, I live in a ski resort, so I naturally assumed that I would get the chance to do the Alpine events, the downhill slalom, giant slalom. Billy Kidd was then our CBS analyst. He’s the director of skiing at Steamboat and a good friend, so I thought well that’s – – it’s just so natural. And then I got the call from New York and they said, “You’re doing figure skating.” And my initial reaction was not really positive, and the dirty little secret that I’ve managed to keep now, for what, almost 20 years, 18 for sure, since the ’92 Olympic games in Albertville, I didn’t know one jump from the other, and that’s where my dear friend Scott Hamilton saved my professional reputation because every time a jump was about to come up, he would reach over and just tap me on the forearm as if to say, “Shut up now, and I’ll take it.” And we’ve remained dear friends, and I’ve grown to love the sport.

John Sparks
Are there other events that you especially enjoy from the winter games?

Verne Lundquist
Yes, there are. There’s one particularly, and I think it would surprise folks, but again it goes back to where I live in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Over the course of the last half century, maybe even more than that, our little community has sent now more than 80 athletes to the Winter games, 80. It’s astounding, and the most prominent of those who have represented our country from Steamboat are the Nordic Combined guys. And Todd Lodwick is kind of the leader of that group. He grew up in Steamboat, and I’ve known Todd for better than 20 years. Johnny Spillane is another Steamboat native who’s a part of the group, and a young man named Bill Demong, D-E-M-O-N-G, is from upstate New York, but he’s lived in Steamboat for a decade, and those three kids, not kids, I mean Todd’s in his 30’s now, and this will be his fifth, fifth, Olympic Games. That’s (unintelligible). But they might medal in Vancouver. They’ve gotten that good. So our whole community is going to be watching that event, the Nordic Combined. It’s a combination of ski jumping and cross-country racing and it’s really not on anybody’s radar in our country. It’s enormously popular in Scandinavia, as you can imagine.

John Sparks
Is there one particular event, one particular performance that stood out above all others in your memory at a Winter Olympics?

Verne Lundquist
Oh yeah. Yeah, John, 1994, we were involved in the cartoon that is known as Tonya and Nancy, right. And Scott and I were right in the middle of it, the whole unbelievable build up to that event. I just got a word from CBS, one of my friends who’s a vice president at the office in New York just sent me word that our Super Bowl coverage had an overnight rating of 46, a 46 share, which — or 46 rating rather, and that is the highest since 1987 for a Super Bowl, so we’re going to set a record number of viewers. In 1994 for Tonya and Nancy on the ice in Lillehammer, we had 48.5, and it’s the all-time highest rated Olympic show, and I don’t think anybody’s going to top that now on a fractured universe. So just to be a part of that is very, very memorable.

John Sparks
I can imagine. As a follow-up, do you have a favorite Olympic athlete who will be competing this month in Vancouver?

Verne Lundquist
Yes, I do, and I already mentioned him, Todd Lodwick. He’s … his grandparents lived in Steamboat Springs. His mom and dad served as the grand marshals of our winter carnival last weekend. The 97th winter carnival in Steamboat history, and it is — for a small community, it’s a huge event, and I’ve known Todd not since … well, since he was a teenager, a young teenager, and I first saw him compete in the Olympics in Lillehammer in ’94, and he’s been a part of everyone since, and they finished fourth, the team did, in Salt Lake City. They had a breakdown at the last minute, so I know how much it would mean to him if he could lead the Nordic Combined team to any kind of a podium finish in Vancouver.

John Sparks
Verne, there’s always been this issue about athletes being role models, and it’s difficult, as you know, to make a broad general assessment, but I’m going to ask you anyway. Do you think that the actions of the Olympic athletes teach our kids mostly good things or bad things?

Verne Lundquist
I think mostly good. I’m an optimist in some ways about what the lessons are that emanate from the athletes down to — into the young people’s world. I think the whole Olympic concept, I know it’s over-commercialized. We all understand and accept that, and I know that in the summer, I mean, the shoe companies just dictate so much and it — that tends to make one very cynical. But here again, I keep going back to these — the two sports in the Winter Olympics that I know best — figure skating and Nordic Combined. I really do know the kind of sacrifice that skaters, male and female, go through to earn a spot on their respected Olympic teams and the effort that’s put in, the dedication that’s required, and I know the same about the much less popular sport of Nordic Combined. And I think, I really believe, that on the whole, the lessons learned from these people who compete at that high level are beneficial to our youngsters.

John Sparks
Now Verne, no matter what the sport may be, whether we’re talking amateur or professional, the issue of drugs comes up, specifically these days performance enhancing drugs. And I’m just curious how common you think the use of steroids is among our Olympic athletes?

Verne Lundquist
Well I was optimistic about the previous question. I’m a little pessimistic and somewhat cynical about this one. It’s there, and it’s a constant race between those who find ways to mask the use of steroids or other performance enhancing drugs and those who try and catch them. We’ve seen what happened in baseball. I’m not foolish enough to think it doesn’t happen in the winter sports and the summer sports as well. I mean what track and field has gone through and may still be going through is alarming, and we’ve all heard about blood doping and other — anything it seems to me that by a certain group of people that can help you go become stronger, faster and jump higher, their level of cynicism seems to be a dominant facet of their lives. I’m going on and on here, but it bothers me. As pure as I’d like to think they are, I’m realistic enough to know that not all of them are.

John Sparks
Verne, anything else you might want to comment on concerning the Olympics which we haven’t talked about, and then I certainly want to ask you what’s going on with you these days?

Verne Lundquist
I’m heavily involved in our college basketball. I’ve got … I did a game in the West Coast last week. We had — Duke-Georgetown a week before in Washington and were blessed to have the President do commentary with Clark Kellogg and me. If I had to do one event before it’s all over for me, I’d love to get a shot at one more Olympics, either winter or summer. I’ve never done the summer, ever, ever. I’m terribly envious of Tom Hammond, who at NBC, who gets to do track and field in the summer and figure skating in the winter. That would be something I’d really love to do.

Verne Lundquist

February 10, 2010 | by Marist Poll

Verne Lundquist first joined CBS Sports in 1982. During his tenure, he has broadcast over 20 different sports for the Network. Currently, Lundquist serves as the lead play-by-play announcer for CBS Sports’ coverage of college football, alongside analyst Gary Danielson. In addition, he serves as a play-by-play announcer for the Network’s coverage of NCAA Basketball, including the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship. He provides commentary for the Masters , the PGA Championship, among other PGA TOUR events. Lundquist was inducted into the National Sportscaster and Sportswriters Hall of Fame in April 2007.

Verne Lundquist

He marked his 25th year covering the Masters in 2009 and was a regular member of CBS’s golf announce team from 1983-95. Lundquist returned to CBS Sports in 1998 after having previously worked for CBS from 1983-95. During his career, he worked with Terry Bradshaw and Dan Fouts, and occasionally with lead analyst John Madden, on the Network’s NFL broadcasts and was lead play-by-play announcer for CBS’s coverage of figure skating during the 1992, 1994 and 1998 Olympic Winter Games. He had extensive involvement in the Network’s previous coverage of the NBA.

His extensive credits at CBS Sports include track and field, swimming and diving, boxing, volleyball, gymnastics, soccer, weightlifting, free-style skiing, archery, horse racing and horse jumping. He spent eight years at ABC Sports and three years as a play-by-play announcer for TNT’s coverage of the NFL, NBA and golf and figure skating coverage (1995-97). He is well-known in Texas as the long-time radio voice of the Dallas Cowboys (1972-84). Lundquist was sports director at WFAA-TV in Dallas for 16 years and won seven consecutive Texas Sportscaster of the Year Awards (1977-83). He was inducted into the Texas Radio Hall of Fame in 2003. Lundquist was inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame in 2005.

It was the first time in the 55-year history of the Texas Sports Hall of Fame that members of the media were inducted. Lundquist was part of the inaugural class along with seven other legendary sportscasters and sports writers. He was named a 2005 Legend of the Sun Bowl by the Sun Bowl Association. Lundquist presented former Pittsburgh Steeler great Terry Bradshaw at his induction ceremony in Canton, Ohio for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He began his career at KTBC-TV in Austin at a station owned by President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson.

Biography from CBS Sports

2/8: A Successful Presidency for Obama? An Onside Kick isn’t Necessary, But…

February 8, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

It’s one down and three to go for President Obama, and no one is suggesting the first year was stellar. But, President Obama doesn’t need to pull any Super Bowl Coach Sean Payton’s razzle-dazzle just yet… a strategic redirection, though, wouldn’t hurt.

The latest, national Marist Poll points out the trouble spots for President Obama. His approval rating continues to lag in the mid-forties. His efforts to attract Independents and appeal across party lines have come up way short. A majority of Independents disapprove of his job performance. Four in five Democrats give him high marks, and a similar proportion of Republicans think he is failing. Almost half of the electorate reports he has fallen below their expectations.

A 2010 referendum on President Obama has to be far down the Axelrod wish list. Just slightly more than one-third of the electorate thinks Obama is changing the country for the better. A majority of voters tell us the 2010 elections are more about sending a message to D.C. pols and less about local issues important to their state or community. And, who tops the list of Beltway types targeted for unhappy voters? It’s Congressional Democrats, followed by President Obama, and then Congressional Republicans. It’s the end of the first quarter. President Obama has no choice but to reverse direction and bring the GOP into this political scrimmage.

The White House strategy of defining the 2010 elections in terms of Obama vs. GOP policies could still have traction, if the contests revolve around the economy (as they inevitably will). President Obama frequently references that he inherited the nation’s economic problems, and 62% of registered voters agree with him.

Successful presidents have followed divergent paths on the road to their own re-election. Take the case of Presidents Clinton and Reagan. President Clinton suffered on likeability but flourished in terms of the job he was doing on policy. Although coming up short in the current numbers, this could still end up being the Obama direction. More likely, President Obama will follow the Reagan roadmap. Higher likeability scores than job performance ratings. Currently, President Obama’s favorability rating is running six percentage points better than his approval rating.

This is not to argue that President Obama will score the kind of policy points Clinton did or enjoy the adoration of Reagan. But, until the public believes he owns the economic problems, his Democratic base erodes, or his likeability ratings fall to where his job approval numbers are, he’s still very much alive in the political ballgame.

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