UPDATE: Ms. Fisher and I spoke for about 45 minutes about online media, the growing blogging community in Arkansas, and the impact of technology on media, politics, and business.  It appears our discussion was timely, because John Brummett has a column today lamenting these things.

For whatever reason he also attacks KATV’s “Choose Your News” program, one that I view to be an interesting and clever way to allower traditional viewers (and online users) to develop a relationship with KATV and play a role in the generation of content.  Even in its infancy, it appears to be working.  Participating last night in the Daily Debrief, a streaming video aspect of the overall “Choose Your News” program, Fisher and I fielded dozens of questions submitted in real time via e-mail and instant message on an array of topics related to online media.

Ms. Fisher has her own blog, too, and I assume she’ll provide a response to Mr. Brummett there.  And in twitter posts.  And on the streaming video from her site.  And on television.  How fitting it would be.

As many readers here know, I’ve been very interested in the decline of newspapers in the face of growing interest in the online space.  See: Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.  To Mr. Brummett’s point about the intersection of traditional newspapers and technology, consider this.

In 2006, Stephen Gray of the Newspaper Next initiative of the American Press Institute observed, “Newspapers are uniquely positioned to capture this land rush, but not if they don’t grasp the opportunity.”  According to a survey conducted by Next, “newspaper managers that found that 72 per cent of them did not know how to change their business to accommodate the digital age.”  He further argued that newspapers need to “sustain core products while embracing and developing their own new ‘disruptive’ products that responded to information needs of the public.”  He concludes, “”It would pain me to see the vast resources that newspapers have just piddled away into insignificance.”

Douglas McLennan, writing for the National Arts Journalism Project, observed in an article titled, “Who Put These Guys in Charge (Why Newspapers are Failing),” “Pretty much every online initiative in the traditional news industry has been me-too-ism rather than bold invention. . . Reporters and editors are pressed to add digital duties - blogs, podcasts etc - as add-ons to their “regular” jobs instead of incorporating the digital world as essential tools that should make their ability to gather and tell stories and interact with their communities easier. This shouldn’t add to the work load (but always seems to). Instead, these things ought to make reporting easier.”

Enter president-elect Barack Obama who said this while appearing on “60 Minutes:”

“I think any sensible person would say that, if you’ve got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there’s no clear, decisive winner, that we should be creating a playoff system. Eight teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would — it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don’t know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do.”

There’s another reason why I voted for this guy. Michael Wilbon of The Washington Post notes, “it’s become the No. 1 topic this week in college football and forced another national discussion that those of us with good sense not only welcome, but find a relief.”

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports appeared on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and said this about Obama:

“If he’d just gotten up there like Bill Clinton and said, ‘I feel your pain, Auburn fans. The BCS must go. We must tear down this BCS wall.’ I honestly think if he had embraced this, he could’ve won 49 states. Alaska, with no college football teams and governor Sarah Palin probably would’ve been impossible to topple, but everyone else would’ve gone his way…”

If you’re a true fan of the BCS (which means you lack sense and reason), then imagine this doomsday scenario from Tony Barnhart, one of the leading analysts of the game:

• Oklahoma beats Texas Tech in a thriller
• Florida State beats Florida
• BCS standings heading into championship Saturday: 1) Alabama; 2) Texas; 3) Oklahoma; 4) Texas Tech; 5) USC; 6)Florida
• Florida beats Alabama in the SEC Championship Game
• Texas loses to Missouri in the Big XII Championship Game
• Oklahoma and Texas Tech move to 1 - 2 in the BCS rankings and are set to play in the BCS Championship Game (Voters try to prevent this by voting UCS #2, but the computers kick them down to #3)
• BUT Missouri has the automatic bid to the BCS by virtue of winning the Big XII. BCS rules state that no more than two teams from any one conference can participate in the BCS. There is nothing in the BCS by-laws governing this scenario.
• Chaos reigns

Jim Harris of Arkansas Sports 360 and Wally Hall of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette need to weigh in on this.

UPDATE: Josh Levin of Slate has stepped into this discussion, which continues to get a lot of attention nationally.  He writes, “It’s worth remembering that the BCS itself wasn’t created as an equitable way to determine college football’s national champion. Rather, it was designed as a candy coating to make the same old scheme—with its massive payouts to the major football conferences—go down easier.”

On Obama’s idea, Levin opines, “If Obama is serious about his playoff proposal, he needs to start working over America’s leading football institutions: the athletic conferences and the presidents of universities with powerhouse football programs. This will prove about as easy as getting the U.N. Security Council to authorize an invasion. For the university presidents, the best argument in favor of the BCS is that everybody’s already getting rich—why mess with a good thing?”

Kinkade says that modest gains in Arkansas by the GOP is progress that counts for a lot.

But beyond this, there is troubling news over at The National Review.

As I noted here earlier this year, Christopher Buckley, son of the magazine’s founder, William F. Buckley, endorsed Barack Obama for president, and was quickly shown the door. Today, The New York Times reports that David Frum, a prominent conservative writer, is leaving to launch a Web venture. Over at The Corner, the National Review’s influential blog, you can read comments by a few of the magazine’s contributors.

Yes, like all people, magazine writers move around. But Frum isn’t just any magazine writer, and NR isn’t just any magazine. Or maybe it is now that Mr. Buckley is gone. It’s hard to imagine Mr. Buckley fawning over Palin the way many of the editors and writers there did (one of Frum’s concerns was with the backlash he received after writing negatively about her), but we’ll never know.

But I cannot be unfair to the magazine. After all, I’m hardly a regular reader. I pay attention to Frum and Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry and Charles Krauthammer because they’re smart guys even if we disagree consistently (as an aside, Krauthammer wrote this piercing editorial about John Edwards, and I agreed with every word of it.) Peggy Noonan and David Brooks don’t write for NR, but I rarely miss a word (they were both critics of Mrs. Palin; Mr. Brooks described her as “cancer to the Republican Party.”)

In late October, E.J. Dionne, writing in The New Republic, observed, “The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity–and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces.”

Like everywhere else in life, it’s easy to pile on the defeated in politics. Aside from the score-keeping, one thing the GOP has always been good at is idea generation. After all, that’s the primary reason Buckley founded NR, and it served as adequate justification for rarely turning a profit.

Which brings me to a larger question. In the Times‘ article Mr. Frum notes, “I am really and truly frightened by the collapse of support for the Republican Party by the young and the educated.” I’ve been pondering this for past few weeks. Exit polling demonstrates that young people and the well-educated voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama. For the first time in eight years, the Democratic Party proved to be the party of ideas.

President George W. Bush will leave office with the lowest approval rating in history, and the comparisons to Herbert Hoover are becoming more accurate as this troubled economy sinks further towards a depression. Barring a Clinton-esque transition gaffe(s), president-elect Obama will enter The White House with approval ratings nearing seventy percent, and substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.

If Mr. Dionne is right, and the GOP think tank is being led by propoganda mongers Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mrs. Palin, I am saddened. That may sound strange coming from me (after all, it’s about winning, isn’t it?), but let’s be honest. With our economic future in jeopardy; two concurrent wars being fought thousands of miles away; and an energy crisis like nothing we’ve ever seen, it’s time to populate the marketplace with ideas.

But the GOP is polarized. Former presidential candidates are taking swipes at each other, and no one, not even NR, seems to know which way is up. As good as it has proven to be for Democrats in the short-term, how will Americans fare in the long term?

It’s actually a pretty weak day for football all around.  The LR Central Tigers didn’t even sniff a win, much less the playoffs, so I’m not as focused on the high school football as I normall would be.  And can I really get fired up about Notre Dame - Navy; Florida - South Carolina; Auburn - Georgia?  Dunno.  We’ll see how the day goes.

It could be a good day for movies and books. “Quantum of Solace,” the 22nd James Bond film, opened last night.  It’s no “Casino Royale,” but there’s some cool stuff and pretty women.  Mathieu Amalric (of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”) is an impressive (if under-utilized) villain.  But the song really sucks.  If you live in big cities, like New York, you can see “Slumdog Millionaire,” “A Christmas Tale,” “I’ve Loved You So Long,” and “Synedoche, New York.”  You should go see them. I live in Arkansas, so I can go see “Saw V” (that’s an exaggeration, of course.  I can also see “Beverly Hills Chihuahua”).

Tomorrow, The New York Times Book Review assesses a new biography on the late George Plimpton, of “The Paris Review” among other literary and interesting achievements.  “In these crazy, mixed-up times, George is a character to be fondly remembered, a hero of sorts, and a charmed and charming partner in his own spirited dance to the music of time,” writes Graydon Carter in his review.

My fall reading list is almost complete.  I’ll look forward to a lot of holiday.  I’ll pick up the Plimpton book, and finish “Herzog.”  Recommendations are welcome.

The November 17th issue of The New Yorker is loaded with great political writing.   Free admission to the Clinton Presidential Library, too, if you’re in LR.

That should be enough for a Saturday. Enjoy it. I’ll check back in tomorrow.

This comes on the heels of news that food banks all across America are struggling during tough economic times. The New York Times notes, “In the four months since June, demand for food aid has risen 20 percent in areas of the country with the healthiest economies and more than 40 percent in areas with the weakest, leaders of nonprofit food-distribution organizations say. And they predict that the need will keep growing in 2009 if the job market continues to contract, as expected. Requests are so high that some food centers are turning away the hungry. “

“The rise in gun purchases in Arkansas mirrors increases seen in the rest of the nation, fueled by anxiety and uncertainty over what limits might be placed on future gun purchases in the wake of last week’s election that gave the Democratic Party control over the White House and Congress for the first time in more than a decade.”

I guess these people missed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June of this year.

The article also notes the rise in gun purchases for people who want protection in light of recent events in Little Rock, including the slaying of KATV reporter Anne Pressly earlier this year. “That’s been a big [factor ] in the increase in sales,” said Kevin Lloyd, manager of Bullseye Guns & Ammo at 205 N. Shackleford Road in Little Rock. “A lot are people in the Heights, who lived close to her or who knew her.” As a result of the slaying, people also are purchasing “pepper sprays and stun guns like crazy,” he said.

Observes Hendrix College political science professor Jay Barth, “I think white Arkansas Democrats felt cross-pressured in this race. They didn’t want to vote for what they viewed as Bush’s third term, but they also couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Barack Obama. One response was just to bow out of voting, and their absence probably helped this proposal succeed.”

John McCain won Arkansas by 20 points, and Arkansas trended right politically.

UPDATE:  Thanks for the link Arkansas Family Fun blog.