Last night, Washingtonpost.com ran a live blog of election results. Different political reporters contributed little briefs throughout the night as results came in.
Mark Warner's "easy win" over Jim Gilmore was literally the first item posted on the live blog. The Post reports that "Even before the Virginia polls closed at 7 p.m., the Associated Press declared Mark Warner the winner, receiving 52.38 per cent of the vote over 38.17 per cent for Gilmore."
The live blog idea works very well, I think, when you have opinions (not really personal thoughts on what you want to happen, but thoughts on what you think will happen based on evidence) and analyses to contribute. I'm not so sure what I think about this almost wire service style list of miniature briefs posted throughout the night.
To be honest, I was not actually keeping track of the politics blog on Election Day, so I could be mistaken about how the blogs were posted and received by readers. The comment section on the live blog was quite lively though, with various readers cheering, whining, or talking to each other.
Over all, this was an excellent race to follow this election. Washingtonpost.com's coverage of the Warner-Gilmore race expanded a few things and worked to interact with readers while keeping to very traditional articles much of the time. It would have been nice to see more multimedia elements- sidebars, videos, photo galleries, etc.- of this election, but it is natural for a race like this to be ignored while the Presidential election is going on.
Well- that's my blog! Thanks Professor- hope you like it!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
News Media Commentary: Virginia Discussion with Tim Craig
Washpost.com had another great discussion today with Virginia politics reporter Tim Craig regarding Virginia's position as a key state in the presidential election. I've said it before and I'll say it again- these discussions are a really great way to reach out to readers and use multimedia to its best gain.
I would worry a bit however, if I as a reporter was asked to participate in a discussion like this, that by offering my opinions on current situations, I would give off an apparent bias that could be destructive to my position.
Anyways, on to the topic at hand.
Craig addressed some interesting questions here- answering them well. I found his explanation of how the major parties get an idea of how many voters they have in a state that doesn't have a party box on voter registrations particularly good.
Of course, for this blog, the most important topic is the Warner/Gilmore race. Craig's insight here is pretty good.
He puts down a bit the idea of a "reverse coattail effect" that could lead Warner's popularity to help Obama. Craig does say that he thinks Warner could help Obama pick up a point or two in rural areas of the state in Southwest Virginia, but that Obama could help Warner gain points just by pulling people out to vote in the presidential race.
We'll see what happens.
I would worry a bit however, if I as a reporter was asked to participate in a discussion like this, that by offering my opinions on current situations, I would give off an apparent bias that could be destructive to my position.
Anyways, on to the topic at hand.
Craig addressed some interesting questions here- answering them well. I found his explanation of how the major parties get an idea of how many voters they have in a state that doesn't have a party box on voter registrations particularly good.
Of course, for this blog, the most important topic is the Warner/Gilmore race. Craig's insight here is pretty good.
He puts down a bit the idea of a "reverse coattail effect" that could lead Warner's popularity to help Obama. Craig does say that he thinks Warner could help Obama pick up a point or two in rural areas of the state in Southwest Virginia, but that Obama could help Warner gain points just by pulling people out to vote in the presidential race.
We'll see what happens.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
News Media Commentary: In Real America, Shining a Light on Faux Pas
WashPost published an interesting article today looking at the "Real America" comments made by those in the McCain campaign recently and the effects those comments have had on Virginians supporting Obama who consider themselves part of that real America.
I'm not going to get into it too much- it only showed up on my "Mark Warner/Jim Gilmore" search because Warner talked at the Obama rally mentioned in the article, but it's an interesting piece to look at.
I'm not going to get into it too much- it only showed up on my "Mark Warner/Jim Gilmore" search because Warner talked at the Obama rally mentioned in the article, but it's an interesting piece to look at.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
News Media Commentary: Editorial- Mark Warner for Senate
Today, the Washington Post endorsed Mark Warner for U.S. Senate.
The Editorial Board brought out the adjectives today- calling Warner a "successful entrepreneur who rescued Virginia from insolvency by streamlining government while modestly raising taxes." James S. Gilmore III (am I supposed to be using their full names here? Am I going to get in trouble for not putting the R in Mark R. Warner?) was described unattractively as "an unapologetic, not very thoughtful partisan whose reckless tax cuts nearly drove Virginia to financial ruin."
And somewhere Gilmore goes "Ouch!" You gotta feel bad for the guy after that blow.
The Editorial said itself (personifying articles for the win!), "The contest between Mr. Warner and Mr. Gilmore is as much a referendum on their tenures as governor as it is on their plans for the Senate." And apparently, despite many saying this is a bad idea, it's the correct option to judge the future performance of a politician on his past performance in a completely different office!
However, the Post does look ahead as well- saying Gilmore's "knee-jerk opposition to the $700 billion federal rescue of the financial system shows that his irresponsibility would continue in the Senate," as he accuses and attacks Wall Street high rollers and other "nebulous punching bags" (what a great line!) without offering any good alternatives.
The Editorial Board also points out fairly that some of Warner's campaign promises seem a bit- strange. The fact that Warner supports "Congress's effort to undermine the District's ability to author its own gun laws," an effort he would never support in Virginia, seems particularly strange. He also doesn't offer any specifics on how to fund U.S. transit upgrades.
Overall though, the Board must think he's a pretty good choice. I mean, who endorses a candidate a full three weeks before the contest?
Very interesting. Though the Post seems to lean left in its endorsements usually anyways, the Board presents a very good reasoning of why it supports Warner over Gilmore.
Now I still think they could do more with the online presentation. Have they ever considered producing a video showing exactly why they're endorsing a particular candidate over the other? I don't think anyone's done that yet- it would be innovative and a great way to expand into new media. I feel like they could at least have thrown in a few sidebars comparing Warner's policies with Gilmore's positions at least- just repurposing content to put online seems a little lazy and non-innovative to me.
The Editorial Board brought out the adjectives today- calling Warner a "successful entrepreneur who rescued Virginia from insolvency by streamlining government while modestly raising taxes." James S. Gilmore III (am I supposed to be using their full names here? Am I going to get in trouble for not putting the R in Mark R. Warner?) was described unattractively as "an unapologetic, not very thoughtful partisan whose reckless tax cuts nearly drove Virginia to financial ruin."
And somewhere Gilmore goes "Ouch!" You gotta feel bad for the guy after that blow.
The Editorial said itself (personifying articles for the win!), "The contest between Mr. Warner and Mr. Gilmore is as much a referendum on their tenures as governor as it is on their plans for the Senate." And apparently, despite many saying this is a bad idea, it's the correct option to judge the future performance of a politician on his past performance in a completely different office!
However, the Post does look ahead as well- saying Gilmore's "knee-jerk opposition to the $700 billion federal rescue of the financial system shows that his irresponsibility would continue in the Senate," as he accuses and attacks Wall Street high rollers and other "nebulous punching bags" (what a great line!) without offering any good alternatives.
The Editorial Board also points out fairly that some of Warner's campaign promises seem a bit- strange. The fact that Warner supports "Congress's effort to undermine the District's ability to author its own gun laws," an effort he would never support in Virginia, seems particularly strange. He also doesn't offer any specifics on how to fund U.S. transit upgrades.
Overall though, the Board must think he's a pretty good choice. I mean, who endorses a candidate a full three weeks before the contest?
Very interesting. Though the Post seems to lean left in its endorsements usually anyways, the Board presents a very good reasoning of why it supports Warner over Gilmore.
Now I still think they could do more with the online presentation. Have they ever considered producing a video showing exactly why they're endorsing a particular candidate over the other? I don't think anyone's done that yet- it would be innovative and a great way to expand into new media. I feel like they could at least have thrown in a few sidebars comparing Warner's policies with Gilmore's positions at least- just repurposing content to put online seems a little lazy and non-innovative to me.
Friday, October 10, 2008
News Media Commentary: Who are all those McCain-Warner voters?
Interesting article from Marc Fisher today on the tale of the elusive "McCain-Warner" voter.
Fisher hit the streets with U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Mark Warner in an effort to find out what compels Virginia voters to switch parties down at the Senate section.
Some reasons offered up by the people he talked to-
Where's the Republican love, people?
Fisher hit the streets with U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Mark Warner in an effort to find out what compels Virginia voters to switch parties down at the Senate section.
Some reasons offered up by the people he talked to-
- Warner's history as governor compels voters to think of him as a guy who reaches across party lines and gets things done.
- Warner's business background helped boost the technology sector and was great for Virginia, particularly NoVa.
- Even straight voting Republicans credit Warner with being an "unusually acceptable Democrat."
- People are "unsure" of Obama, but McCain and Warner are people that have been in the public eye for a long time, being watched.
- The characterization of Virginia as a place unready to relate to Obama- "the kind of place that says, 'You're going to conform to our ways or you're going to have a problem.'"
- Warner said himself- his years of work before running for governor making himself known at fairs, festivals, and turning himself into a NASCAR fan- connected him to "rural Virginia culture." Warner says it's unrealistic to expect that Obama could do all that groundwork in the short time of a general election campaign.
Where's the Republican love, people?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
News Media Commentary: Two Identical Articles on Warner, Different Titles
"Should Mark Warner regret not going for the White House?" This Marc Fisher article online is called.
And here's the exact same article as it appeared in print. Titled "A Lead like Warner’s might make Obama more interesting”
How very weird- the same article published online and in print, just with different titles. Do you think it's in an effort to reach out to different audiences?
That's what I'm betting. A headline really changes entirely how a story is perceived. The online "White House" title has a note of more optimism in it towards Warner's chances- but also implies that Obama may not be doing so hot in the race. Then the "Lead" title is more neutral, but implies perhaps that Obama isn't terribly interesting.
I think it's funny that this theme is coming back again and again- the question of "Is Warner riding on Obama's coattails or is Obama riding on Warner's coattails?"
The article itself is eh. I don't agree with the premise.
Fisher starts out- "Mark Warner isn't running against Barack Obama, but he's beating his fellow Democrat by a stunning 25 or so points. The former governor is trouncing his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, Jim Gilmore, by upward of 30 points in recent polls. Obama, in contrast, holds a slim lead over John McCain in most Virginia polls."
Well duh. You know how you hold up a magnifying glass to something and you start seeing all its flaws? Even on a model's face? Warner and Gilmore have already been put to that scrutiny in Virginia- they've been seen up close, in personal, and in action. The voters already seem to have made up their minds who they like. Neither Obama nor McCain, on the other hand, have ever been seen in action in Virginia- they're totally out of their element and getting seen in this instance, from afar. And with Virginia's changing dynamics the way they are, it makes sense that McCain and Obama would be neck and neck at this point in the game.
Anyways, Fisher does make one good point- Warner's being more open than Obama at this point, complaining about "the failure of the presidential candidates to get specific about our dire economic situation." Obama, instead, is playing it cautious, as a presidential candidate is prone to doing.
Apparently Warner's crowds really do wonder why McCain and Obama don't "talk like this," in the style of explaining how we got "into this mess" and how he would set up a "bipartisan coalition of radical centrists" who would fix it.
I love how Fisher describes the need for a Democrat to lean center with some traditionally Republican values, proving himself as a "NASCAR-loving, pro-gun kind of Democrat."
Then he actually got an interview with Warner (at least the article implies) at a burger joint in Manassas Park- got his opinions on McCain and Obama, and the Bush administration.
I really do like the ending- go read it, it's pretty. : )
You know, I think I'm starting to see what a friend of mine, Nick, has been pointing out. The media really does emphasize the "urgency" and "catastrophic nature" of this "economic crisis." According to economic definitions of crisis, um, we're not in one. Though it's necessary that the media covers the news out there- including economic perceptions and beliefs- it's not necessary for articles to make it seem like our country is on the verge of a breakdown.
-shrug-
And here's the exact same article as it appeared in print. Titled "A Lead like Warner’s might make Obama more interesting”
How very weird- the same article published online and in print, just with different titles. Do you think it's in an effort to reach out to different audiences?
That's what I'm betting. A headline really changes entirely how a story is perceived. The online "White House" title has a note of more optimism in it towards Warner's chances- but also implies that Obama may not be doing so hot in the race. Then the "Lead" title is more neutral, but implies perhaps that Obama isn't terribly interesting.
I think it's funny that this theme is coming back again and again- the question of "Is Warner riding on Obama's coattails or is Obama riding on Warner's coattails?"
The article itself is eh. I don't agree with the premise.
Fisher starts out- "Mark Warner isn't running against Barack Obama, but he's beating his fellow Democrat by a stunning 25 or so points. The former governor is trouncing his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, Jim Gilmore, by upward of 30 points in recent polls. Obama, in contrast, holds a slim lead over John McCain in most Virginia polls."
Well duh. You know how you hold up a magnifying glass to something and you start seeing all its flaws? Even on a model's face? Warner and Gilmore have already been put to that scrutiny in Virginia- they've been seen up close, in personal, and in action. The voters already seem to have made up their minds who they like. Neither Obama nor McCain, on the other hand, have ever been seen in action in Virginia- they're totally out of their element and getting seen in this instance, from afar. And with Virginia's changing dynamics the way they are, it makes sense that McCain and Obama would be neck and neck at this point in the game.
Anyways, Fisher does make one good point- Warner's being more open than Obama at this point, complaining about "the failure of the presidential candidates to get specific about our dire economic situation." Obama, instead, is playing it cautious, as a presidential candidate is prone to doing.
Apparently Warner's crowds really do wonder why McCain and Obama don't "talk like this," in the style of explaining how we got "into this mess" and how he would set up a "bipartisan coalition of radical centrists" who would fix it.
I love how Fisher describes the need for a Democrat to lean center with some traditionally Republican values, proving himself as a "NASCAR-loving, pro-gun kind of Democrat."
Then he actually got an interview with Warner (at least the article implies) at a burger joint in Manassas Park- got his opinions on McCain and Obama, and the Bush administration.
I really do like the ending- go read it, it's pretty. : )
You know, I think I'm starting to see what a friend of mine, Nick, has been pointing out. The media really does emphasize the "urgency" and "catastrophic nature" of this "economic crisis." According to economic definitions of crisis, um, we're not in one. Though it's necessary that the media covers the news out there- including economic perceptions and beliefs- it's not necessary for articles to make it seem like our country is on the verge of a breakdown.
-shrug-
News Media Commentary: Ten Steps Through Virginia to the White House
A fascinating article by Tim Craig today on the "Ten Steps Through Virginia to the White House."
The very first question addressed in the piece is "What role does Mark R. Warner play for Obama?"
Craig's answer- since Warner is wildly popular and leading 30 points over Gilmore in the polls, he may have an effect on Obama's ability to win Virginia. However (as I guessed before! I so said this!), Craig says it's unclear how public Warner will be with his support of Obama, as he is still trying to attract supporters from moderate Republicans (who could shun Warner if he takes a high-profile role in Obama's campaign).
Ooo I love it when I call things right.
This article is awesome! It really does political analysis very well.
The rest of the article is fascinating too, but absolutely nothing I'm willing to comment on due to my propensity to write articles on the presidential election on UWire Youth Vote '08 and my unwillingness to comment on such issues due to the absolute necessity of me staying as objective as possible on the topic.
And there you go.
The very first question addressed in the piece is "What role does Mark R. Warner play for Obama?"
Craig's answer- since Warner is wildly popular and leading 30 points over Gilmore in the polls, he may have an effect on Obama's ability to win Virginia. However (as I guessed before! I so said this!), Craig says it's unclear how public Warner will be with his support of Obama, as he is still trying to attract supporters from moderate Republicans (who could shun Warner if he takes a high-profile role in Obama's campaign).
Ooo I love it when I call things right.
This article is awesome! It really does political analysis very well.
The rest of the article is fascinating too, but absolutely nothing I'm willing to comment on due to my propensity to write articles on the presidential election on UWire Youth Vote '08 and my unwillingness to comment on such issues due to the absolute necessity of me staying as objective as possible on the topic.
And there you go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)