His analysis finds that Democrats who appear on The Colbert Report enjoy a significant increase in the number and total amount of donations they receive over the next 30–40 days when compared to similar candidates who do not appear on the show. Specifically, Democrats who come on the program raise $8,247 more than colleagues who don’t do so on the 32nd day following their appearance—“a bump of roughly two-fifths over the normal rate of receipts.” Republicans do not appear to benefit at all from appearing on the program; notably, they raise more funds in the month before coming on the program while actually raising less money in the month following their appearance—hinting at a possible “Colbert bust” for the GOP instead.

While conceding that it is “important not to read too much into these results” Fowler does also state that “one might be tempted to dismiss the importance of the Colbert bump because it is just money.” Clearly, political fundraising is done for a purpose and the most important consequence of any bump is whether Colbert candidates win elections. With only the 2006 elections having been completed since The Colbert Report came on the air, the upcoming 2008 elections will likely provide greater insight into this interesting and humorous wrinkle in modern American politics.

Dan Gilmour, author of We The Media, has an article on the Center for Citizen Media about the future of journalism lying in the helping of what he terms as “almost-journalists” doing actual journalism. He points to organizations such as the ACLU or Human Rights Watch, uncovering gross instances of abuse as examples of very successful “almost-journalism”.

He writes:”They are absolutely in the media field now, because they are using the tools of media creation to learn and tell stories, and to make those stories available to a wide audience. These organizations and countless others like them — small and large, local and international — are part of the media ecosystem. With just a little extra effort, they could be part of the journalistic ecosystem too, in ways that go far beyond their traditional roles.”

Gilmour believes that helping these kinds of organizations remove the almost from their names will lead to a boon in credible news sources for the public.

via boingboing

Here’s the graphic that shows what General Electric owns:

To see more check it out who owns what on television at Neatorama.

Does anybody know if this has been done for Canada? I’d love to see it!

The Youtube blog announced today the start of a new kind of channel: The Reporter Channel.

Touting the media revolution, the channels are for:

• People who tote around their cameras offering “on-the-scene” coverage of local news and events
• Students producing their own weekly newscasts
• Active community members who conduct interviews with local leaders
• Engaged citizens who love providing commentary and analysis on important issues affecting the world at large
• Professional journalists using YouTube as an additional outlet for their work

Is this truly a revolution in democracy? Is it Youtube further monetizing it’s future? I think it has to be satisfy both cultural and economic orders in order to function within the metanarrative netizens use.

Something is rotten when government institutions cut deals with certain media, but not others.

Two cases in point: A marketing “exclusive” between the Royal Alberta Museum and the Edmonton Journal, and “video sharing” between Edmonton CBC-TV and Global.

In return for discounted rates, the Royal Alberta Museum promises promotion and advertising exclusively with the Journal.

If the museum wasn’t government, I’d have no problem with the concept. Advertising “exclusivity” happens all the time. Media outlets are forever competing to be “exclusive presenters” of popular events.

But the museum is 100% government, part of the provincial Department of Culture and Community Spirit.

Why is the government of Alberta cutting exclusive deals with one media, but not the rest?

At the very least, sharing the same media and news source can lead to hilarious fake stories that “news” agency will cover.
Via Inside the CBC