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.
Monday, October 6, 2008
(Unofficial) News Media Commentary: Warner has Support of many Republicans
Mark Warner, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, has the support of many Republican officials, according to a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article. (I'm aware this won't count for my news media commentary for WashPost.com, it's cool).
The former governor gave a news conference in Richmond Friday accompanied by several former GOP state legislators, including former Senate Finance Committee Chairman John H. Chichester of Northumberland County. Chichester said that he and other Republicans support Warner for Senate because of his focus on leadership.
It could be interesting to see what effect this news has on the race. It has been no secret that Warner is considered a stronger candidate than Gilmore by many. My last blog entry reveals that- I mean, if the guy whose spot you're trying to get in Senate doesn't even support you, what does that say?
We'll see what happens next.
The former governor gave a news conference in Richmond Friday accompanied by several former GOP state legislators, including former Senate Finance Committee Chairman John H. Chichester of Northumberland County. Chichester said that he and other Republicans support Warner for Senate because of his focus on leadership.
It could be interesting to see what effect this news has on the race. It has been no secret that Warner is considered a stronger candidate than Gilmore by many. My last blog entry reveals that- I mean, if the guy whose spot you're trying to get in Senate doesn't even support you, what does that say?
We'll see what happens next.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
News Media Commentary: GOP's Warner Hesitant to Back Gilmore over Bailout Stance
Ok I'm so happy to have an excuse to use this picture.
Yep. It's U.S. Sen. John Warner in a kilt. LWPrencipe took it back in 2005 at the Alexandria, Virginia Scottish Walk. <3 the Creative Commons.
This leads into my article of the day- regarding outgoing Sen. Warner's hesitancy towards backing Republican candidate Jim Gilmore in the election for his seat in the U.S. Senate.
Apparently in a conference call with reporters, Warner said he could possibly vote for Democrat Mark Warner (they're unrelated). The elder Warner said that though the young (whipper-snapper, I insert) Warner ran against him in a 1996 Senate campaign, the two are friends.
(To tell them apart from now on, I will put John Warner's name in bold. Mark Warner will be unbolded.)
Warner said he is disappointed that Gilmore is criticizing the financial bailout so strongly. As I mentioned in a past blog entry, Gilmore attacked Warner for his support of the bailout package strongly in the last debate, saying it was an unnecessary use of tax dollars.
Warner voted for the federal bailout plan Wednesday, saying it was needed to spur banks to lend money.
Warner donated $2,000 to Gilmore's campaign in June, but according to the article, it wouldn't be unusual for Warner to break ranks with his party (he endorsed an independent in a 1994 Senate race instead of his fellow Republican candidate).
Man, when I write Warner in bold it kinda makes him seem like God, yeah? Really weird. I think I'll avoid that in the future.
Nice little write-up by Tim Craig- short, sweet, to the point. It's very interesting that Warner is considering not voting for Gilmore in an election that, if Warner wins, will leave Virginia's two U.S. Senate seats completely in Democratic hands (with U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, of course).
Verrryyy interestingggg.
Yep. It's U.S. Sen. John Warner in a kilt. LWPrencipe took it back in 2005 at the Alexandria, Virginia Scottish Walk. <3 the Creative Commons.
This leads into my article of the day- regarding outgoing Sen. Warner's hesitancy towards backing Republican candidate Jim Gilmore in the election for his seat in the U.S. Senate.
Apparently in a conference call with reporters, Warner said he could possibly vote for Democrat Mark Warner (they're unrelated). The elder Warner said that though the young (whipper-snapper, I insert) Warner ran against him in a 1996 Senate campaign, the two are friends.
(To tell them apart from now on, I will put John Warner's name in bold. Mark Warner will be unbolded.)
Warner said he is disappointed that Gilmore is criticizing the financial bailout so strongly. As I mentioned in a past blog entry, Gilmore attacked Warner for his support of the bailout package strongly in the last debate, saying it was an unnecessary use of tax dollars.
Warner voted for the federal bailout plan Wednesday, saying it was needed to spur banks to lend money.
Warner donated $2,000 to Gilmore's campaign in June, but according to the article, it wouldn't be unusual for Warner to break ranks with his party (he endorsed an independent in a 1994 Senate race instead of his fellow Republican candidate).
Man, when I write Warner in bold it kinda makes him seem like God, yeah? Really weird. I think I'll avoid that in the future.
Nice little write-up by Tim Craig- short, sweet, to the point. It's very interesting that Warner is considering not voting for Gilmore in an election that, if Warner wins, will leave Virginia's two U.S. Senate seats completely in Democratic hands (with U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, of course).
Verrryyy interestingggg.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
News Media Commentary: The teeth come out- when candidates attack
(photo taken by Flickr's Duo de Hale, who said the dogs in the picture are actually just playing. It sure looks like fighting though- so it fits for this post. Creative Commons licensed picture.)
Anita Kumar wrote an article in WashPost today on last night's Gilmore v. Warner debate, the last scheduled debate of the race.
Here's the scoop:
- Republican Jim Gilmore repeatedly touted his opposition to the $700 billion financial bailout package signed into law earlier today and attacked his Democratic opponent Mark Warner over his support for the emergency economic plan. This financial rescue package offers Gilmore the chance to emphasize the differences between him and Warner (who as I noted in one of my former blog entries, are seen as creepily similar at times).
Quick Quote: "This bailout is wrong. It is wrong," Gilmore said. "I can say, I would have voted no. I would have protected the taxpayer. Mark Warner would have not." - Warner says he supports the plan and would have voted for it, although he would have liked to see some changes. He noted that both presidential candidates and both Virginia senators supported the bill.
Quick Quote: "We had to act," Warner said. "This was a time when we needed to go forward to help the taxpayers." - Apparently this debate was more "feisty" then the last two, as both candidates were observed interrupting the other. They were also noted snapping at each other like dogs fighting.
Gilmore attack: "Don't talk down to me. Don't tell me I don't understand. You don't understand." (I can't help feel that this quote may have qualified for a few exclamation points.)
Warner attack: "The last thing Washington needs is one more over-the-top, my-way-or-the-highway, partisan ideologue in the Senate."
Now, boys, it's time to play nice!
The article also talked a little on various topics such as the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and other not quite as fun topics.
Then the teeth came out again! (At least in the article)
- On the topic of the state's past financial problems! A fitting one for two former governors!
Warner Attack: "You can't simply push off problems the way you tried to do when you pushed off the budget shortfalls we inherited when I became governor of Virginia."
Gilmore Attack: "There was never a budget shortfall in Virginia," Gilmore said. "The law does not permit that."
Oh sister. Watch out for that.
And here's another photo to illustrate.
(photo by Jesse Gardner- who also said that these dogs may look fierce were just "having a grand time")What has the world come to when dogs are behaving better than our candidates for state senator?
Oy vey.
Oy vey.
Friday, October 3, 2008
News Media Commentary: Warner/Gilmore Debate not on TV
Raw Fisher weighs in on how you can’t watch the Warner vs. Gilmore debate on tv anywhere.
Apparently every market in Virginia is carrying the debate between Warner and Gilmore live on local TV, except the local Washington D.C. stations. Though News Channel 8 is showing a tape of the debate at 11 p.m., not a single one will show the debate live.
Fisher derides this decision by talking of the shows that will fill the time on those channels instead, including "Wheel of Fortune," "Jeopardy," "The Simpsons" and "Entertainment Tonight."
He does say the debate will be livestreamed on WashPost.com.
I really think Fisher says it best here.
"Polling shows Warner to be far, far ahead of Gilmore in the race to succeed Sen. John Warner, but that doesn't excuse the decision to bypass the only TV meeting between the candidates in the most important race on Virginia ballots other than the presidency."
So are the Washington stations crossing into part of Virginia at all? Does it overlap with say, Northern Virginia? If that's the case, I'm totally with Fisher every step of the way. However, if these stations are really only just for the district, I think he's overreacting a little.
The comments on the site suggest that the stations do overlap with Northern Virginia.
One commenter laments- "...Once again, northern Virginia is not part of the rest of the state. Perhaps I should have stayed in Maryland or DC, both places where I lived in earlier years.
It is hard to believe that the accepted wisdom predicting the winner pre-determines how the democratic process should unfold, here in our nation's capital. Virginia is in play this year.
And a Senatorial race is important, always. I can't believe that no local TV station is carrying the debate."
Sad. Very Sad.
Apparently every market in Virginia is carrying the debate between Warner and Gilmore live on local TV, except the local Washington D.C. stations. Though News Channel 8 is showing a tape of the debate at 11 p.m., not a single one will show the debate live.
Fisher derides this decision by talking of the shows that will fill the time on those channels instead, including "Wheel of Fortune," "Jeopardy," "The Simpsons" and "Entertainment Tonight."
He does say the debate will be livestreamed on WashPost.com.
I really think Fisher says it best here.
"Polling shows Warner to be far, far ahead of Gilmore in the race to succeed Sen. John Warner, but that doesn't excuse the decision to bypass the only TV meeting between the candidates in the most important race on Virginia ballots other than the presidency."
So are the Washington stations crossing into part of Virginia at all? Does it overlap with say, Northern Virginia? If that's the case, I'm totally with Fisher every step of the way. However, if these stations are really only just for the district, I think he's overreacting a little.
The comments on the site suggest that the stations do overlap with Northern Virginia.
One commenter laments- "...Once again, northern Virginia is not part of the rest of the state. Perhaps I should have stayed in Maryland or DC, both places where I lived in earlier years.
It is hard to believe that the accepted wisdom predicting the winner pre-determines how the democratic process should unfold, here in our nation's capital. Virginia is in play this year.
And a Senatorial race is important, always. I can't believe that no local TV station is carrying the debate."
Sad. Very Sad.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
News Media Commentary: Seinfeld Actor helping Warner raise money
As part of the "Blogging the Way to Election Day" feature today, I found a fun piece on Mark Warner.
Jason Alexander, formerly known as "George Costanza" on the TV show "Seinfeld" is helping former Democratic governor Mark Warner raise money!
Just dig this quote-
"If you thought Seinfeld was a show about nothing, you should check out Congress," Alexander said in a fundraising letter e-mailed to supporters. "I can't remember such a lack of productivity since the summer of George."
Excellent! (Does "George" even live anywhere near Virginia?")
I mean, not that Warner really needs Alexander's help- as I've already noted in past blog entries, he, at least a while ago, was outraising Jim Gilmore eight to one. But it's pretty cool nonetheless.
And now I have the opportunity to post pseudo-stalkerish photos of Jason Alexander from Flickr! I love Creative Commons!
(Photo by adjustafresh. Said he took it in Rhode Island so maybe Alexander lives on the East coast after all.)
Jason Alexander, formerly known as "George Costanza" on the TV show "Seinfeld" is helping former Democratic governor Mark Warner raise money!
Just dig this quote-
"If you thought Seinfeld was a show about nothing, you should check out Congress," Alexander said in a fundraising letter e-mailed to supporters. "I can't remember such a lack of productivity since the summer of George."
Excellent! (Does "George" even live anywhere near Virginia?")
I mean, not that Warner really needs Alexander's help- as I've already noted in past blog entries, he, at least a while ago, was outraising Jim Gilmore eight to one. But it's pretty cool nonetheless.
And now I have the opportunity to post pseudo-stalkerish photos of Jason Alexander from Flickr! I love Creative Commons!
(Photo by adjustafresh. Said he took it in Rhode Island so maybe Alexander lives on the East coast after all.)
And okay, the blog thing is cool- it puts together tons of little briefs on Virginia and national politics news. It's a fast way of getting a ton of -really random- news on politics.
And there's your news media commentary. Many apologies- I got distracted by my near-obsessive love of all things celebrity.
And there's your news media commentary. Many apologies- I got distracted by my near-obsessive love of all things celebrity.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Washpost.com: Music Reviews
Decided to check out Wash Post's music reviews this week- I'm not actually that impressed. Though they're of course, well written, with great photographs, there doesn't seem to be much ingenuity in the layout of anything I see- no real usage of internet abilities.
I mean, maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but everything just looks the same.
A review on Sugarland on Sept. 23- article and a photo. Lots of links within the article to artist's names. I do like that by clicking on say "Beyonce," you can go look at a complete list of articles on Beyonce Knowles on washingtonpost.com, on the web, and blogs, video and audio on her. That is a very nice touch.
A piece on Alanis Morrissette from Sept. 24 didn't even have a photo from the concert. So blah.
A concert review of Randy Newman on Sept. 26 had no picture and nothing interesting about it. I mean, come on! This is Randy Newman! You could do so much on him! A photo gallery, timeline, stuff about him from over the years....It just feels that there's no effort in this.
Like- am I looking the wrong place? I can see that these articles are all from the print edition as well- but shouldn't there be some more innovation then this? I'm disappointed.
I mean, maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but everything just looks the same.
A review on Sugarland on Sept. 23- article and a photo. Lots of links within the article to artist's names. I do like that by clicking on say "Beyonce," you can go look at a complete list of articles on Beyonce Knowles on washingtonpost.com, on the web, and blogs, video and audio on her. That is a very nice touch.
A piece on Alanis Morrissette from Sept. 24 didn't even have a photo from the concert. So blah.
A concert review of Randy Newman on Sept. 26 had no picture and nothing interesting about it. I mean, come on! This is Randy Newman! You could do so much on him! A photo gallery, timeline, stuff about him from over the years....It just feels that there's no effort in this.
Like- am I looking the wrong place? I can see that these articles are all from the print edition as well- but shouldn't there be some more innovation then this? I'm disappointed.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
News Media Commentary: Post Politics Hour
Apparently every morning at 10 a.m., Washingtonpost.com answers questions about political coverage and issues. This morning's "Hour" brought up Warner and Gilmore, only as a brief mention, but enough for it to show up on my regular search of the website for "Warner" and "Gilmore."
In response to the question "What's your current thought on the top of the ticket impacting the tightest senate races?" from Chicago (!AWESOME!) Ben Pershing (washpost.com congressional blogger) answered- "A big Obama win definitely would help fellow Democrats down-ballot, though it's tough to tell yet which states....Democrats in some other swing states --...Warner in Virginia -- probably will win on their own momentum and don't need much help from Obama. Mark Warner actually may give Obama a ride on his coattails, rather than the other way around."
What an interesting idea. I've already come across mentions of voters who vote "McCain-Warner"- I wonder if any of those voters could be persuaded by Warner to vote for Obama? I mean, I think he's being careful to stay to the right of the left, if you know what I mean (like in the center? you know?) in an effort to reach out to independents and Republicans. So I really don't know how willing he'd be to speak out for Obama. But by merely being Democrat, it may help.
It's always fun to see how local elections (where your vote actually matters a lot!) affects national elections (where honestly, just face it, your vote means shit).
I -love!- these political discussions online with readers! They're getting people involved in the greatest way possible and getting their own experts out there commenting on issues at the same time! Brilliant!
In response to the question "What's your current thought on the top of the ticket impacting the tightest senate races?" from Chicago (!AWESOME!) Ben Pershing (washpost.com congressional blogger) answered- "A big Obama win definitely would help fellow Democrats down-ballot, though it's tough to tell yet which states....Democrats in some other swing states --...Warner in Virginia -- probably will win on their own momentum and don't need much help from Obama. Mark Warner actually may give Obama a ride on his coattails, rather than the other way around."
What an interesting idea. I've already come across mentions of voters who vote "McCain-Warner"- I wonder if any of those voters could be persuaded by Warner to vote for Obama? I mean, I think he's being careful to stay to the right of the left, if you know what I mean (like in the center? you know?) in an effort to reach out to independents and Republicans. So I really don't know how willing he'd be to speak out for Obama. But by merely being Democrat, it may help.
It's always fun to see how local elections (where your vote actually matters a lot!) affects national elections (where honestly, just face it, your vote means shit).
I -love!- these political discussions online with readers! They're getting people involved in the greatest way possible and getting their own experts out there commenting on issues at the same time! Brilliant!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Washpost.com: Angler Investigative Piece
(Dick Cheney jack-o-lantern. Because I can. Photo taken by P5ychoP3nguin, Creative Commons)
When Wash Post does an investigative piece in the paper, usually it's accompanied by beautifully rendered graphics online. Whatever readers thought of the Chandra Levy investigative series last summer (many people hated it with a passion and thought it was useless), it was laid out online beautttiffullyyy (In the interest of full disclosure: my boss at LoudounExtra.com was one of the main project managers/designers on the online side of things on the Chandra story).
Last week's piece on Cheney was no exception.
In print, really it wasn't that big of a deal. Just two excerpts of an article printed on Sept. 14 and 15.
But online- wow! Just look at these graphics. The picture of Cheney is dramatic- the silhouette evokes Hollywood glamour. It totally sucks you in. The graphic is carried through to the tops of the pages on the linked story portions, providing a sense of style and continuity throughout.
The online Cheney project is crammed with information that would never have made it into print- a rundown of his life and career, a detailed cast of characters with photos, and a narrated photo gallery on the vp from some colleagues, friends and acquaintances. It definitely brings out the humanity- they portray Cheney as more than a bad guy here.
Really well done piece- it definitely shows how online journalism can expand above and beyond what print can do. Lots of innovation here.
And here's another picture. (Man it was hard finding a non-biased picture of Cheney online, Flickr's full of liberal hippies. Some of the lego reenactments of the "shooting" incident are pretty funny though.)
(Picture by G3oWORK, Creative Commons)
Friday, September 19, 2008
News Media Commentary: Warner/Gilmore Debate- one blog, three articles
1. Local state Senator Chap Petersen blogged about the Mark Warner/Jim Gilmore debate yesterday- how very cool to have a politician's views on this. I've spoken with Petersen via e-mail before for a story- he's incredibly nice.
A few interesting thing from Chap's blog-
2. Marc Fisher at the Washington Post had a list of questions for Warner and Gilmore. He was planning on asking them these questions in person, but was disinvited from the panel at the request of one of the candidates.
Fisher seems a little ticked about this, but manages it calmly enough. He mentions especially that he was disinvited at the request of one of the candidates, later confirmed as Gilmore. He does say he thought originally it was Warner who "bounced" him from the panel, since he's cautious about his contact with reporters.
Topics he hopes the candidates address during the debate-
"If a hypothetical bill came up for a vote, and the best interest of the country as a whole would be a Yea vote, and the best interest of Virginia would be Nay, which way would you vote?"
"What is your position on the Alternative Minimum Tax?"
Then there's other blather in the comments on the one sided liberal media and slurs about Sarah Palin maybe being pregnant again. One really weird one accuses Fisher of "whining like your favorite drag queen who just put a run in his $50 panthouse!" [sic]
Huh. That was weird. I do really love how Fisher invites participation from his readers- way to bring them into the story. An innovative Internet format that clearly wouldn't work in print. (Well okay, you could ask for people to send in letters, but you probably wouldn't get the sheer variety of responses.)
3. Anyways, on to Fisher's real column on the debate.
He points out that there is a "remarkable and almost discomfiting degree of agreement" between Gilmore and Warner. The candidates apparently agreed in the debate on what to do about the economy (more oversight, more regulation), on gun rights (supported them), and on offshore oil drilling (both called for it, an interesting turn from Warner's skeptical stance back in the summer).
Apparently all they agree on however, still doesn't make Gilmore or Warner like each other. Rawwrrr. Fisher observes, "stylistic differences aside, you could just feel the hatred permeating the room from both sides" Very funny.
Gilmore talked about Obama negatively a lot. What a suprise.
Fisher brings up the question- Is Gilmore's "insistent linking of Obama and Warner" meant to tap into racial animosity? He says he doesn't think Gilmore's said anything to support that notion, but thinks the fact that readers from both parties have written in to say that was the message to took from Gilmore's debate tactic "suggests that someone has race on the brain--was it the candidate or the voters?"
Fisher calls it a "fairly useless debate" in which neither candidate landed any hard punches. An interesting analysis contrasting with Petersen's assertion in his blog that they both had. Hmm. I wish I had a transcript of this debate so I could see it for myself. I guess a news article on the debate could work better for my analysis on this- I'lll look at that next. Man, this blog is long.
I do think it's interesting- though Fisher writes from a very distinctive voice, I have not yet been able to tell if he leans politically one way or the other. Admittedly, I do not read his columns regularly. I know his name very well, as when I was working daily at WashingtonPost.NewsweekInteractive this summer, an e-mail would get sent out to everyone whenever he updated his blog. (I suppose the Raw Fisher name is in reference to sushi?) I do admire his ability to write on politics in an opinion column without his slant being extremely obvious.
4. The official article on the debate, written by Tim Craig and Anita Kumar says that the candidates were forced to depart from simply discussing their records as governor and address other issues such as "their views on the economy and the hunt for terrorists around the globe."
This article contrasts Gilmore and Warner as having two distinct personalities and leadership styles.
The article notes a substantive discussion of foreign policy that arose during the debate- a discussion of Pakistan.
Warner said he believes Pakistan would someday emerge as "the most dangerous nation" in the world. Gilmore agreed with Warner that U.S. troops should have the right to enter Pakistan in search of terrorists, but stressed that the country remains a U.S. ally.
"I think I would not sit here in an open forum today and say and describe the country of Pakistan as one of the great potential threats," Gilmore said.
It's fascinating to see what each article and blog I've looked at her has picked to talk about. None of the other articles talked about the Pakistan discussion at all but the main debate article put it on the first page of the story. The article also observed that both men appeared to be on "equal footing" during much of the debate.
This has been really interesting just looking at the differences in the articles on WashingtonPost.com. Just think about what it would be like if I looked at another news site!
A few interesting thing from Chap's blog-
- He observes that each of the candidates were "on their game" and calls Gilmore "the underdog" that's not going down easily.
- Petersen notes that "the ongoing Wall Street meltdown plays to Mark Warner's strengths." He thinks Warner's knowledge of business, capital markets, and the uses and abuses of the U.S. banking system will help him here. He says Gilmore's mainly copying Warner's answers.
- The best back and forth, in Petersen's opinion, was on energy issues. When he mentions Virginia's "domestic assets" I get a little lost, as I wasn't aware Virginia actually had any domestic energy assets. Shows what I know. Maybe offshore oil? I'm a Texas girl- I'm used to seeing actual oil rigs when there's energy assets about. Hm. Anyways, apparently both Warner and Gilmore also talked on the need to "declare independence from foreign oil."
- Petersen also includes an excellent anecdotal story on his time in the House of Delegates in 2001 when Gilmore submitted his final budget.
2. Marc Fisher at the Washington Post had a list of questions for Warner and Gilmore. He was planning on asking them these questions in person, but was disinvited from the panel at the request of one of the candidates.
Fisher seems a little ticked about this, but manages it calmly enough. He mentions especially that he was disinvited at the request of one of the candidates, later confirmed as Gilmore. He does say he thought originally it was Warner who "bounced" him from the panel, since he's cautious about his contact with reporters.
Topics he hopes the candidates address during the debate-
- What the current Wall Street crisis is and how it started. Fisher claims this isn't a "gotcha" question, but a way to look at how they think about the economy.
- He talks about asking the candidate's questions that "push [them] away from the easy sloganeering of the campaign trail." It looks like Fisher's interested in asking both candidates about their views on the Iraq War.
- "Virginia's demographic shift toward more Democratic voting and what it means for the state's politics"
- He also asks whether Warner is moderating his positions in this campaign to appeal to Republicans and independents.
- "What does Gilmore really think of McCain?" Apparently Gilmore called McCain "angry and divisive" back in 2000. Interesting.
"If a hypothetical bill came up for a vote, and the best interest of the country as a whole would be a Yea vote, and the best interest of Virginia would be Nay, which way would you vote?"
"What is your position on the Alternative Minimum Tax?"
Then there's other blather in the comments on the one sided liberal media and slurs about Sarah Palin maybe being pregnant again. One really weird one accuses Fisher of "whining like your favorite drag queen who just put a run in his $50 panthouse!" [sic]
Huh. That was weird. I do really love how Fisher invites participation from his readers- way to bring them into the story. An innovative Internet format that clearly wouldn't work in print. (Well okay, you could ask for people to send in letters, but you probably wouldn't get the sheer variety of responses.)
3. Anyways, on to Fisher's real column on the debate.
He points out that there is a "remarkable and almost discomfiting degree of agreement" between Gilmore and Warner. The candidates apparently agreed in the debate on what to do about the economy (more oversight, more regulation), on gun rights (supported them), and on offshore oil drilling (both called for it, an interesting turn from Warner's skeptical stance back in the summer).
Apparently all they agree on however, still doesn't make Gilmore or Warner like each other. Rawwrrr. Fisher observes, "stylistic differences aside, you could just feel the hatred permeating the room from both sides" Very funny.
Gilmore talked about Obama negatively a lot. What a suprise.
Fisher brings up the question- Is Gilmore's "insistent linking of Obama and Warner" meant to tap into racial animosity? He says he doesn't think Gilmore's said anything to support that notion, but thinks the fact that readers from both parties have written in to say that was the message to took from Gilmore's debate tactic "suggests that someone has race on the brain--was it the candidate or the voters?"
Fisher calls it a "fairly useless debate" in which neither candidate landed any hard punches. An interesting analysis contrasting with Petersen's assertion in his blog that they both had. Hmm. I wish I had a transcript of this debate so I could see it for myself. I guess a news article on the debate could work better for my analysis on this- I'lll look at that next. Man, this blog is long.
I do think it's interesting- though Fisher writes from a very distinctive voice, I have not yet been able to tell if he leans politically one way or the other. Admittedly, I do not read his columns regularly. I know his name very well, as when I was working daily at WashingtonPost.NewsweekInteractive this summer, an e-mail would get sent out to everyone whenever he updated his blog. (I suppose the Raw Fisher name is in reference to sushi?) I do admire his ability to write on politics in an opinion column without his slant being extremely obvious.
4. The official article on the debate, written by Tim Craig and Anita Kumar says that the candidates were forced to depart from simply discussing their records as governor and address other issues such as "their views on the economy and the hunt for terrorists around the globe."
This article contrasts Gilmore and Warner as having two distinct personalities and leadership styles.
- Gilmore says he would be a conservative voice in Congress and would support drilling for oil and retaining Bush's tax cuts.
Quick Quote of the Debate:
"There are serious challenges out there, and people want to see quick action. The people of Virginia want to know they will have a senator who will keep [his] word." - Warner says he has the experience to end partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill. He's "embracing the center" of the political spectrum by seeking common ground on issues such as energy and taxes.
Quick Quote of the Debate:
"At the end of the day, Virginians do have a choice. A senator who's produced results, or one who's about more partisanship."
The article notes a substantive discussion of foreign policy that arose during the debate- a discussion of Pakistan.
Warner said he believes Pakistan would someday emerge as "the most dangerous nation" in the world. Gilmore agreed with Warner that U.S. troops should have the right to enter Pakistan in search of terrorists, but stressed that the country remains a U.S. ally.
"I think I would not sit here in an open forum today and say and describe the country of Pakistan as one of the great potential threats," Gilmore said.
It's fascinating to see what each article and blog I've looked at her has picked to talk about. None of the other articles talked about the Pakistan discussion at all but the main debate article put it on the first page of the story. The article also observed that both men appeared to be on "equal footing" during much of the debate.
This has been really interesting just looking at the differences in the articles on WashingtonPost.com. Just think about what it would be like if I looked at another news site!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Washpost.com: Wedding Week 2008
I will have to admit that I have been shamelessly following WashPost.com's coverage of weddings. Last week was declared "Wedding Week 2008" and WP outdid itself with stories, q&as, videos, and photo galleries on a wide variety of topics having to do with the big W.
Here are a few features that really stuck out for me.
Wash Post had a chat online on planning weddings on a budget with authors Denise and Alan Fields. By reading through the transcript, I can really tell that readers were getting into the spirit of things. Interaction like this is always a plus- the audience loves to get input on their own problems.
There's a great video looking at what a Muslim woman wanting to dress conservatively can wear to a wedding. It ties in a running video series on Muslim style with the wedding topic, giving exposure to WP's other content as well. In addition, it's well-shot, interesting, and really helpful to broadening the Wedding theme out to cultures beyond WASPs.
The Anti-Wedding package was brilliant. It's an entertaining look at the gripes many people have about weddings taken to the limit. By letting two reporters plan a couple's anti-wedding, readers get pulled in by the novelty of it all, in addition to the sort of train wreck voyeurism of "what will they do to them?" Excellent idea.
There's also a narrated photo show of how a wedding cake is made, a collection of pics of celebrity weddings, and even a link over to partner site Sprig's tips on an eco-friendly wedding.
An excellent blend of information, technology, and interaction with readers from Wash Post on this- Bravo!
Here are a few features that really stuck out for me.
Wash Post had a chat online on planning weddings on a budget with authors Denise and Alan Fields. By reading through the transcript, I can really tell that readers were getting into the spirit of things. Interaction like this is always a plus- the audience loves to get input on their own problems.
There's a great video looking at what a Muslim woman wanting to dress conservatively can wear to a wedding. It ties in a running video series on Muslim style with the wedding topic, giving exposure to WP's other content as well. In addition, it's well-shot, interesting, and really helpful to broadening the Wedding theme out to cultures beyond WASPs.
The Anti-Wedding package was brilliant. It's an entertaining look at the gripes many people have about weddings taken to the limit. By letting two reporters plan a couple's anti-wedding, readers get pulled in by the novelty of it all, in addition to the sort of train wreck voyeurism of "what will they do to them?" Excellent idea.
There's also a narrated photo show of how a wedding cake is made, a collection of pics of celebrity weddings, and even a link over to partner site Sprig's tips on an eco-friendly wedding.
An excellent blend of information, technology, and interaction with readers from Wash Post on this- Bravo!
Friday, September 12, 2008
Washpost.com: Marc Fisher has superhuman counting powers
I'm a big fan of Washingtonpost.com. I'm not going to lie. I work for the parent Company- WPNI, under LoudounExtra.com- started in May as a summer intern and continue to contribute as a freelancer.
But now that that's out of the way, I have every intention of commenting to the best of my ability on WashPost.com's articles, blogs, and features.
The entry of interest today is a post from blogger/columnist Marc Fisher on the McCain/Palin rally in Fairfax on Sept. 10.
In this piece, he mentions this offhandedly.
"The crowd, which I counted at 8,000 but which police estimated at 23,000, gathered at Van Dyck Park in Fairfax City represented votes for John McCain but passion for Palin."
Now read that again.
"The crowd, which I counted at 8,000."
What!? Okay, I was at this rally, covering it for UWire Youth Vote '08 (shameless plug) and there were so many people there- I can't even comprehend how he managed to count even half the audience, much less the entire thing. I'm sure crowd-counting is one of those skills you gather as you grow more experienced with journalism, but this crowd was PACKED and active- they weren't standing still, they were jumping up and down, screaming, waving signs and generally moving. How on earth did he try to count it?
That point aside, he brings up a good point. The official number from the McCain campaign at the rally was 23,000- the police reported closer to 27,000. As I was standing up on the press bleachers, journalists around me were estimating the audience was over 15,000.
Whatever it is, it's known that campaigns are notorious for overexaggerating crowds. But in this instance- how would they even attempt to keep count? Of course they'll have an accurate count of the journalists there- we had to sign up and such- but unless someone was standing by the security check point with one of those little number counter things ticking people off as they went through, I really don't know how they could keep track of this.
How much should journalists take campaigns at their words? How important is this figure in a story like this? This rally was reported to be the largest crowd McCain had ever drawn.
It's hard to know.
But now that that's out of the way, I have every intention of commenting to the best of my ability on WashPost.com's articles, blogs, and features.
The entry of interest today is a post from blogger/columnist Marc Fisher on the McCain/Palin rally in Fairfax on Sept. 10.
In this piece, he mentions this offhandedly.
"The crowd, which I counted at 8,000 but which police estimated at 23,000, gathered at Van Dyck Park in Fairfax City represented votes for John McCain but passion for Palin."
Now read that again.
"The crowd, which I counted at 8,000."
What!? Okay, I was at this rally, covering it for UWire Youth Vote '08 (shameless plug) and there were so many people there- I can't even comprehend how he managed to count even half the audience, much less the entire thing. I'm sure crowd-counting is one of those skills you gather as you grow more experienced with journalism, but this crowd was PACKED and active- they weren't standing still, they were jumping up and down, screaming, waving signs and generally moving. How on earth did he try to count it?
That point aside, he brings up a good point. The official number from the McCain campaign at the rally was 23,000- the police reported closer to 27,000. As I was standing up on the press bleachers, journalists around me were estimating the audience was over 15,000.
Whatever it is, it's known that campaigns are notorious for overexaggerating crowds. But in this instance- how would they even attempt to keep count? Of course they'll have an accurate count of the journalists there- we had to sign up and such- but unless someone was standing by the security check point with one of those little number counter things ticking people off as they went through, I really don't know how they could keep track of this.
How much should journalists take campaigns at their words? How important is this figure in a story like this? This rally was reported to be the largest crowd McCain had ever drawn.
It's hard to know.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
News Media Commentary: Warner Dodging the Debate
The Washington Post's editorial opinion on why U.S. Senate candidate Mark Warner is dodging the chance to debate with his opponent Jim Gilmore.
Here are the points the editorial makes.
Warner's dominating in the polls by around 25 points and is out-fundraising Gilmore eight to one. The Post believes his decision to dodge a TV debate is a deft political maneuver on Warner's part- designed to keep voters associating Warner and Gilmore with their former policies and actions while governors, and keeping them from learning more about their contrasting views on energy issues and tax policy.
Apparently when Warner and Gilmore debated last in July, the distinctions between their policies were pretty apparent. Gilmore supports drilling for oil along coastlines and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; Warner is skeptical of offshore drilling still. In addition, the candidates discussed Gilmore's tax cuts while governor- Warner said that the cuts led to a statewide budget shortfall.
The Post thinks Warner is "insulting the democratic process by refusing to engage in primetime debates broadcast statewide." (There will be one debate televised Sept. 18, but only in NoVa during the middle of the day).
It's sad that Warner made this decision, but honestly, I can understand it. Warner's legacy from his time as a governor is a lot more popular than Gilmore's- people love Warner. I witnessed this myself at the JJ Fundraising Dinner in Richmond last February. A bluegrass band played songs about Warner's ability to cut taxes and save the world with innovative politicking (okay, the lyrics were way more intricate than that but I forgot what the name of the group was). Next to Hillary and Obama buttons, Warner's looked like the next most worn there.
Now admittedly, this was in a group of rabid Democrats. However, I think the point can still be made as to Warner's pull on the average Virginian. I know for a while there was a "Warner for President" campaign attempting to pull him into the '08 race- but he shook it off pretty easily. I could actually see him running for President in the future.
Anyways the point is- while Warner is so insanely popular, why on earth should he debate with Gilmore and risk making him look anything less than "awesome ex-governor"?
I do agree with the Post, this is a pretty shameful decision- but it's politics. What can you say?
Here are the points the editorial makes.
Warner's dominating in the polls by around 25 points and is out-fundraising Gilmore eight to one. The Post believes his decision to dodge a TV debate is a deft political maneuver on Warner's part- designed to keep voters associating Warner and Gilmore with their former policies and actions while governors, and keeping them from learning more about their contrasting views on energy issues and tax policy.
Apparently when Warner and Gilmore debated last in July, the distinctions between their policies were pretty apparent. Gilmore supports drilling for oil along coastlines and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; Warner is skeptical of offshore drilling still. In addition, the candidates discussed Gilmore's tax cuts while governor- Warner said that the cuts led to a statewide budget shortfall.
The Post thinks Warner is "insulting the democratic process by refusing to engage in primetime debates broadcast statewide." (There will be one debate televised Sept. 18, but only in NoVa during the middle of the day).
It's sad that Warner made this decision, but honestly, I can understand it. Warner's legacy from his time as a governor is a lot more popular than Gilmore's- people love Warner. I witnessed this myself at the JJ Fundraising Dinner in Richmond last February. A bluegrass band played songs about Warner's ability to cut taxes and save the world with innovative politicking (okay, the lyrics were way more intricate than that but I forgot what the name of the group was). Next to Hillary and Obama buttons, Warner's looked like the next most worn there.
Now admittedly, this was in a group of rabid Democrats. However, I think the point can still be made as to Warner's pull on the average Virginian. I know for a while there was a "Warner for President" campaign attempting to pull him into the '08 race- but he shook it off pretty easily. I could actually see him running for President in the future.
Anyways the point is- while Warner is so insanely popular, why on earth should he debate with Gilmore and risk making him look anything less than "awesome ex-governor"?
I do agree with the Post, this is a pretty shameful decision- but it's politics. What can you say?
Monday, September 8, 2008
News Media Commentary: Gilmore Not Airing TV Ad in NOVA
According to this article written by Tim Craig, Republican U.S. Senate candidate James S. Gilmore III is airing his first televised campaign commercial. Curiously enough, though the commercial is airing in Richmond and “other TV markets downstate” but not in Northern Virginia. Interesting. I wonder what good that will do Gilmore.
I mean, I guess it makes sense. Northern Virginia is very pro-Mark Warner, so it might just be a waste of money. However, I still think it’s a shame to not air the commercial there- NOVA has voted Republican in a few of the last few local elections (I’m thinking particularly Va. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli winning a tight race in Fairfax last year) and I don’t necessarily think he should give it up completely. It’s a very powerful area politically.
It’s expected that the ad’s airtime cost the Virginia Republican Party $80,000. According to the article, Warner ran two TV ads during June and July, but hasn’t had them on the air since early August.
This'll be a fun race to watch- two former governors against each other. And some photogenic ones too. I'd post pictures, but I recently found out in my Journalism Law class that that might not be the best idea. Although, hey, let's look on Flickr and see if I can find something under Creative Commons license I can use...
Hey whadya know? There's a Flickr account for Mark Warner full of photos from his campaign. This was uploaded Sept. 3 from a Labor Day event- I'm not certain who the girl is. Fun picture though- yay not getting sued!
Okay this one was a little harder to find. It's Jim Gilmore's portrait at the Virginia State Capitol- also under Creative Commons- taken by stgermh.
Overall, a very good basic news story- no frills, not even a picture online. I believe Tim Craig is the standard Post writer for stories out of Richmond. I wonder what it's like reporting on location like that. Hm.
I mean, I guess it makes sense. Northern Virginia is very pro-Mark Warner, so it might just be a waste of money. However, I still think it’s a shame to not air the commercial there- NOVA has voted Republican in a few of the last few local elections (I’m thinking particularly Va. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli winning a tight race in Fairfax last year) and I don’t necessarily think he should give it up completely. It’s a very powerful area politically.
It’s expected that the ad’s airtime cost the Virginia Republican Party $80,000. According to the article, Warner ran two TV ads during June and July, but hasn’t had them on the air since early August.
This'll be a fun race to watch- two former governors against each other. And some photogenic ones too. I'd post pictures, but I recently found out in my Journalism Law class that that might not be the best idea. Although, hey, let's look on Flickr and see if I can find something under Creative Commons license I can use...
Hey whadya know? There's a Flickr account for Mark Warner full of photos from his campaign. This was uploaded Sept. 3 from a Labor Day event- I'm not certain who the girl is. Fun picture though- yay not getting sued!
Okay this one was a little harder to find. It's Jim Gilmore's portrait at the Virginia State Capitol- also under Creative Commons- taken by stgermh. Overall, a very good basic news story- no frills, not even a picture online. I believe Tim Craig is the standard Post writer for stories out of Richmond. I wonder what it's like reporting on location like that. Hm.
So Online Journalism
What a great class. What a great teacher. Having me blog for credit. I'm a fan. : )
Anyways- I think my media website of choice to to comment on and analyze this semester will be Washingtonpost.com. Because it's awesome and I kinda work for it, but not enough that it's a conflict of interest. (I work for LoudounExtra.com)
And the subject of choice will be -drumroll, please- local politics! Not a conflict of interest for my work at youthvoteblog.com, but close enough to interesting fun stuff for me to be happy.
Woot-
Rach
Anyways- I think my media website of choice to to comment on and analyze this semester will be Washingtonpost.com. Because it's awesome and I kinda work for it, but not enough that it's a conflict of interest. (I work for LoudounExtra.com)
And the subject of choice will be -drumroll, please- local politics! Not a conflict of interest for my work at youthvoteblog.com, but close enough to interesting fun stuff for me to be happy.
Woot-
Rach
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)