techPresident - Jay Rosen - Comments

I read your post title

thegreathal — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:31:14 -0400

I know, I'm jealous too. My employer wouldn't fly me there either.

this just in... Cindy McCain

alicescheshirecat — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:44:43 -0400

this just in... Cindy McCain also created the internet while taking sniper fire

Off the Bus

Jon Garfunkel — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:16:24 -0500

I'm still failing to see how "Off the Bus" is any different from any other blog/press coverage... Amanda and Zack are nice folks, I've met them both, but under what sort of metrics is their coverage better?

There's no way to view the archives, so it's very difficult to compare. The Nevada caucus coverage is telling:

On January 18th, "psericks" (who he?) blogs:

"On the eve of the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign is again betting against voter turnout, making encouraging statements about a lawsuit that would have shut down nine caucus locations and disenfranchised tens of thousands of shifts workers just hours before the caucus --- with little chance to make other plans to participate."

(psericks was merely repeating what he read in that ol' standby of horserace coverage, the MSM-- specifically, the Las Vegas Sun.)

But, after the caucus, Zack Exley was telling a different story:
"Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing. ... Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference."

Obviously, Zack had put a lot of time into this story (a habit of the ol' MSM) and couldn't quite abandon it (another MSM habit). But the rest of Off The Bus was making the case that it was dirty politics that would put Clinton over the top (Meanwhile, as was reported elsewhere, Obama still won in the delegate count.)

I read the NYT coverage as well. It briefly noted the lawsuite, as well as this point: "The campaign took on an increasingly negative tone, with phone calls identifying Mr. Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama' and Spanish language radio ads suggesting that Mrs. Clinton 'does not respect our people.'"

Aha, this is interesting. So I go Google around, and learn about anonymous robocalls, and their inconsistent enforcement at the state level. Elsewhere on Off the Bus I read about the whisper campaign against Obama in S.C.-- via flyers handed out through church membership.

So here's what I'd like to see: something like UPenn's FactCheck.org, but strictly covering dirty tricks and rumor campaigns, and using investigative journalism skills to figure out who's behind them.

Thanks, Micah!

Ruby Sinreich — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:37:45 -0400

Thanks so much for these notes Micah. There were so many times during this discussion when I just wanted to bop those journalists on the head. They are probably way ahead of their peers, but they are really far from getting it.

They really seem unable to break out the mindset that their audience are a much of dumb sheep with no intellectual curiosity and who have to be told what they want to read. I nearly cried out when Plotz described the media's breathless coverage of Obama coverage as "earned media" instead of the predetermined and self-fulfilling script that the MSM is mindlessly following.

Anyway it was a fascinating discussion to observe. Perhaps next year they can include some of the politicians who they so frequently blamed for spin and message control. We can get a nice "chicken or the egg" session going.

Great post.

David All — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:24:25 -0400

Lots of words. Lots of content.

Thanks for posting this.
________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________