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-