WRVR-FM The River’s Woody and Jim weren’t impressed by Saturday night’s mayoral debate. Bob Clement, whom the duo referred to as “Mr. Phony,” fared especially poorly in a brief discussion this morning. After airing an audio clip where Clement drew from familiar talking points about not caring where good ideas originate and his intention to focus on implementing such ideas, one of the DJs observed, “If you’re running for office, aren’t you supposed to be the one with the good ideas?”

Clement’s sound byte aired between a man-on-the-street clip discussing the freshly cancelled Anchorwoman TV show, one in which the speaker observed that the show’s star might be showing too much “cleavlage,” and audio footage of a recent beauty pageant contestant explaining that 20 percent of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a map because they don’t have enough access to maps. Ouch.

Why do we have such a love/hate relationship with the media? The “fourth estate” is an essential part of democracy in action as a means of raising awareness of occurrences good and bad that deserve exposure to a wide audience. Yet plenty of us spend considerable time and effort calling out media organizations for inaccuracies, misinformation and bias, both perceived and authentic.

Certainly there have been rumblings in the local blogosphere about this, and a recent Pew Research study determined that our disdain for the media is even stronger on the Internet than elsewhere. All of this is happening during a time when most of us consume more and more diverse sources of information than ever before.

I’ll confess that I am a news junkie, and I have been since I was in middle school. I don’t always agree with what I read, and while I enjoy reading varied points of view on all kinds of issues, I still find myself frustrated at times when I think a reporter–or a blogger–is missing what I think is the most important information or perspective. I can’t go as far as saying I hate the media, and I certainly don’t agree with the commentary in the photo above (at least not most of the time). Here are the reasons I can see why we simultaneously can’t get enough and have had more than we can take of the media:

• Control. Ever walked around telling people how wrong you are about something? Me neither, at least not often. Ego is a driving force, for worse or for better, for all of us, and most everyone accepts–without much contemplation–that their opinion and perspective are right while contrary points of view are wrong. I think it’s easy to be angry at and frustrated with any soapbox that’s implying you’re mistaken, even when you are.
• Power. One of the most powerful arguments in favor of unrestricted media content is that reporting is a check against government and individual power. What happens when the media has as much power as those it is intended to check against? Nothing, unless you disagree with the media’s take on reality.
• Envy. This isn’t true for everyone, but many people covet the prominence and the notoriety granted to media organizations and to individual reporters.

I’m sure there are plenty more. I bring this subject up not to silence the mainstream media (if I even could) or to quiet the criticism catapulted against it. I wouldn’t mind seeing the hostility toned down a few notches, but in the end I think the public needs the media as much as the media needs the public. Let’s agree to disagree when we do and proclaim those differences loudly, but let’s do it with openness and respect.

This endorsement is certainly good news for Karl Dean, but how much will it help?

Twenty-seven African-American ministers endorsed Karl Dean for mayor of Nashville at an event today. The preachers put their support behind Dean, a former Metro law director and Davidson County public defender, during a reception at Harper’s restaurant on Jefferson Street. State Sen. Thelma Harper, whose husband runs the restaurant, also attended the event, as did retired Tennessee Supreme Court Justice A.A. Birch Jr., who recently made a TV ad endorsing Dean.

What percentage of African-American voters will turn out now that Howard Gentry is not on the ballot? Will it decrease, as some expect, or will these voters return to the polls to make informed choices in the runoff? Among a population where churches matter as community organizations even more than they do among society at large, how much of an impact will this support for Dean make?

As Sean and others have observed, as many as 100 local African-American ministers had previously endorsed Gentry. Do the other ministers plan to make endorsements, or did they decline to endorse Dean? Twenty-seven is a significant number, but I’m still wondering exactly how significant.

I don’t blame anyone who’s bought a lottery ticket recently for being upset about the glitch that kept many participants from winning. When you think about it, though, is that really all that different from usual? Regular lottery customer Robert Johnson was referring to the recent error, but he could just as easily have been describing lotteries in general:

“That’s a whole lot of money. A lot of people lost a lot of money.”

I’m not opposed to lotteries on ethical grounds, but I do think they contribute to reduced wealth for many low-income families and individuals. Each adult citizen has the right to determine how to use the money they earn, but a disproportionate number of people who are struggling to make ends meet spend significant percentages of their money on lotteries each month. In the long run, I believe this adds up to a lot of poorer non-winners and a tiny fraction of lucky ones. Isn’t that how a lottery is supposed to work?

I’m intrigued by the willingness of the potential Preds’ owners (David Freeman, Boots del Biaggio and others) to permanently commit to the city of Nashville. Yes, there is a catch, and plenty of fanfare has already been made about (legitimate) taxpayer concerns, but this still strikes me as a genuine and well-intentioned offer:

For those who believe Freeman is trying to spring some kind of last-minute, moneymaking scheme on the city, it’s worth noting that his group — and not the city — has insisted on including provisions in a new lease that would:

Forbid new ownership to raise ticket prices above the league average.
Require new ownership to maintain a team payroll at least $5 million above the league’s salary floor if paid attendance averages 16,000 per game.
Require new ownership to donate all excess positive cash flow up to its $3 million request back to organizations in the Middle Tennessee community.
Freeman has consistently said that he and the members of his group aren’t interested in turning a profit.

“We’ve all been very fortunate. We’ve all made our fortunes,” Freeman said. “If we want more, we’ll go earn it in the private sector. We have to ensure that we don’t lose money on the Predators, at least not more than our committed investment, but we don’t need to make money off the Predators.”

This is definitely an apples to oranges comparison, but this potential arrangement has some similarities to the NFL’s Green Bay Packers. That team is literally owned by the city:

Based on the original “Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation” put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise was sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining monies would go to the Sullivan Post of the American Legion in order to build “a proper soldier’s memorial.” This stipulation was enacted to ensure the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholders. At the November 1997 annual meeting, shareholders voted to change the beneficiary from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation.

I sincerely believe that Freeman and Co. are not looking to milk the city as their own cash cow. This is the kind of offer that can allow Nashville to compete as a successful NHL city despite being a relatively small market. The “insurance” provisions being suggested by Freeman’s group are rare in professional sports, to say the least. There are hurdles to clear, no doubt, but this is a proposal I hope the city can embrace.

Mitch Joel is right at Barcamp Nashville that the conversation is completely changing. Is it ironic that he is championing the democratization of conversation when he is one speaking to many at Barcamp?

• We’ve always wanted to connect “this way” (meaning via the Internet, social media, blogging, etc.), but now we actually can.
• Half of YouTube’s audience is over 34. What if you are 34?
• Forty-eight percent of leisure time is spent online. (Wow.)
• People are leaving TV for the internet . . . in droves.
• The Daily Show isn’t funny unless you know what the news is.
• Harley Davidson: What we sell is the ability for 43 year-old accountants to wear black leather, drive through small towns and scare people.
• “Real power” for connecting has been democratized as never before.
• About 120,000 new blogs are started every day. How many will be current three months later?
• Forget Web 1.0 or 2.0, etc.: The Internet has moved from “eyes” to “hands.” I like that illustration, and it simplifies the change into understandable terms.
• Everything needs a wiki.
• Economies have always been based on trust, but now it is more essential than ever before.
• Make people heroes, not products.
• Everything is with, not instead of.
• This shift in conversation is attitudinal, not generational.

Watch this video, and you’ll understand.

Bryce Wells with Athlon made two points at Barcamp Nashville that I think hit the nail on the head about blogging and other content-driven elements of the Internet:

• Defining content is essential.
• Time-based commitment is mandatory.

This is why there are 120,000 blogs created every day but a mere 1.4 million posts during the same 24 hours. Most folks who create a blog haven’t decided what they have to say. As Mitch Joel said, content must be developed, built and grown in an ongoing flow.

Good thoughts from Chris Houtchens on corporate entries into blogging and social media at Barcamp Nashville.

• Social media isn’t for sales.
• Honesty is critical.
• Markets are self-sorting themselves for the first time.
• Companies don’t like putting info out there, but it won’t work unless they do.
• Information sources must be a direct link out the door. (Review/approval is a killer).
• Blogs are not a press release machine.
• Your effort must be real grassroots, not astroturf.
• It must be sincere and real.
• Discuss your industry and not your company.
• And of course … cartoon characters can’t blog.

Marcus Whitney and Dave Delaney kicked things off at Barcamp Nashville a little while ago. Wondering what’s going on? R2D2’s presentation isn’t on the schedule…

At least one former candidate in the Nashville mayor’s race is making an endorsement: Kenneth Eaton.

We Support Bob Clement As Our Next Mayor! Check Back soon for a full Site Update, as Well as a letter of Support from Mr. Eaton. Karl Dean Does not have the Experience to run this city. Karl Dean Is a Continuation of the Purcell Administration. Bob Clement Is the Change Nashville Needs!

Buck Dozier followed the odd tradition of politicians referring to themselves in the third person earlier this week, and Eaton has taken it one step further by opting for the second person “we.” Both Clement and Dean have understandably coveted endorsements that don’t appear to be coming from Dozier, David Briley, and Howard Gentry. Is this an endorsement that Clement wants, though?

I’ve read the phrase a “continuation of the Purcell administration” a few times lately in a negative light. Is following in Purcell’s footsteps a bad thing? Some Nashvillians, and they’re not all in Eaton’s camp, would say yes.

Why would any politician endorse an opponent in a runoff election? One of the questions on many area political watchers’ minds since Nashville’s mayoral election has been whether any of the also-rans will publicly lend their support to either of the “finalists.”

I’d definitely like to know whom each of the former candidates will vote for, but now that Buck Dozier is off the fence about staying on the fence, it isn’t likely to happen. I’m having a hard time coming up with reasons why a candidate should make an endorsement, but I can think of plenty why it’s not a good idea to pick a side once the battle lines have been redrawn:

• Making enemies: Picking one candidate over another might come back to haunt you, especially if you pick the losing candidate. Why would Briley, Dozier or Gentry want to gamble their influence in the next administration on the razor-thin margin of a few hundred votes?
• Alienating your base: How happy would most of Briley’s camp have been to see him endorse Bob Clement? How happy would most of Dozier’s voters have been to see him endorse Karl Dean?
• Swallowing a bitter pill: It’s a rough transition to go from trying to take votes away from an opponent to publicly asking voters to give him more.
• Impropriety: Everyone will wonder what it took, if anything, to”earn” an also-ran’s endorsement. It might be easier to revisit your own agenda down the line if you haven’t made it look like someone’s just returning a much-needed favor.

The reasons I see for making an endorsement, at least in this race, are three: One, you’re convinced one candidate is significantly worse than the other to the extent that it would hurt the city if that candidate won the runoff; two, you want a job in the next administration and don’t mind the potential backlash from such a political pick-and-roll; and three, you’re absolutely not running for anything again and don’t care what anyone else thinks about what you do. Endorsing one candidate over another in such a close race is risking something else: your own political future.