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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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)