Posted June 13, 2008 by dirnerc Categories:Uncategorized
I am confused about the role of a blog. Some blogers like to be considered citizen journalists, others use it as a platform to spout opinion. Open Left appears to have a role of a democratic strategist. Much of the websites entries over the past week discuss the Presidential Election and strategy for the Obama campaign. Not only does the left leaning website discuss strategy, but almost seems to be a direct message to the DNC and the Obama campaign. Much of the writing is from the point of view of a large audience. It is interesting that one person can speak on the behalf of so many. The one 2.0 application that makes the idea of constant communication possible is the comments portion under each blog entry. Even that as I have found tends to be regulated.
As for the right leaning blog Redstate, there is a more researched based critique to the opposition. The blog entries tend to have a less message based feel and more of a point counter point tone. The blog jumps every where from the Presidential campaign to direct messages to Congress about today’s Supreme Court decision. When it comes to covering Obama the blog is tipped off about campaign activities. The Open Left does not go this in depth.
So what is the difference between these blogs and the strategists that appear on cable news? Apparently not that much. The political parties spend a majority of their time vetting staff, researching discrepancies in policy, and finding weaknesses in arguments. This blog form is an informal version of this service we receive from cable news. The question is, is it harmful, is it helpful, or who cares?
Yesterday, I had the pleasure to be on the sidelines of history. I spent the day covering Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, where she endorsed Senator Barack Obama. No matter which Presidential candidate you support, no matter which party you are affiliated with, no matter if you are a journalist, it is still a humbling experience to watch political history being made.
After covering the news of day there was one question in this journalists mind, where was this candor through out the campaign. Apparently other journalists had this same thought. This question lead me to the next less obvious one, why is it not possible for a Presidential candidate to speak honestly and openly? What is with the guard?
Obviously, Clinton did not feel as though she could talk freely about what it was like to be a female running for the highest job title in the nation. Why now? What does this mean for her career? HRC gave the most influential and groundbreaking speech of her campaign. In this reporters opinion it was quite similar to Obama’s speech on race. Did Clinton make a mistake in not revealing this side of her campaign earlier?
It seems to me that through the duration of the democratic primaries there were two elephants in the room. One elephant was race, the other was sex. (Maybe they should be called donkeys.) Whether it was the press, the candidates, or the general public who placed these elephants in the room, never the less they were there.
Senator Obama addressed the elephant, Senator Clinton did not.
Below is commentary from a republican and democratic strategist on Senator Clinton’s speech.
Posted June 8, 2008 by dirnerc Categories:Uncategorized
Two questions were posed on the readings over the last few weeks. The first was what is the difference in the way the press covered the Presidential elections in 1948 compared to the election in 1972, and the second was what is the difference in the campaigns themselves.
The first question posed about the difference in coverage is a fairly uninteresting topic. Technology changed everything. Let’s be honest here, we have been talking about how technology has changed us and continues to changes us for the past several years. The press is always at the forefront of this discussion. Dissemination of information is constantly changing; heck technology is based around this concept.
In the 1948 election information traveled much slower. This is obvious considering that Truman was not thought to have a shot in hell at the Presidency, when in fact the iconic still image of Truman holding up the Headline with “Dewey Defeats Truman,” is burned in to our minds. Television in this time period was in it’s infancy. It was there, but as those in TV like to call it, the “work flow” had not been determined. As blogging was in it’s infancy in the election of 2004 TV was in it’s infancy in 1948.
Zachary Karabell’s “The Last Campaign”, does not discuss the press in as much detail as Timothy Crouse’s “The Boys on the Bus.” “The Boys on the Bus,” talks about the traveling press corps, how stories were formed, and the concept of pack journalism. It appears that by 1972 the comfort level with the forms of technology were adapted and utilized. The “work flow” had been set.
This is much the same feeling that you get from the current election and the use of blogging and other forms of online journalism. The Youtube debate was not a big deal for younger generations. It has become a part of our everyday lives. Need to refer back to what Senator John McCain said in an ad on gas prices? Just search for it on youtube.
Today, campaigns and pack journalists go hand in hand. In fact, some of the stories of the press corps traveling with George McGovern could have been moved to a plane and given the internet and you might never know that this was 1972. Journalists learn to cover a campaign not through a training program, but by seeing how others in the past have done this. If you stray from the obvious lede, you might not be employed come the next election cycle.
The more interesting notion that I received from reading these two books was how campaign strategy had changed. In Karabell’s “The Last Campaign,” he asserts one memo changed the way we view Presidential elections. This memo drafted by Clark Clifford and James Rowe outlined a brilliant plan in order for Truman to pick up the electoral votes needed to clinch the election that was predetermined to be Thomas Dewey’s.
The model of this memo is seen in some form in every election there after. This in this pack journalists opinion ought to be the lede. Between the pages of 38 and 41 I have learned more about campaign stratedgy and the history of how it was formed than in any piece of journalism I have seen to date.
Technology, change and pack journalism are bound to continue, but what is really rare are the in depth looks into how and why we do what it is we do.
