[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:28:14 +0900
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, John, we shouldn't suggest that a campaign were about anything but
> money for ads.
Eric, you're twisting what I said. It isn't just the scale of the money or
the number of ads bought. It's the 3.1 million individual donors and the
million-plus volunteers, a truly epic breakthrough in the political
participation that democracy is supposed to encourage. It's an organization
running like a well-oiled machine in states formerly written off as
impossible. It's the grasp of the synergies made possible by combining new
technology with serious grassroots organizing (while the other campaign
can't get people to its rallies without busing in school kids, has fewer
local offices, undermanned and closed at night and on weekends, and is
leaking snark on a daily basis). On one side you have hugely capable
African-American man who walks the talk of wanting to be inclusive and bring
people together, whose election can be seen as the culmination of the Civil
Rights Movement and will hugely improve America's image overseas. On the
other you have an elderly white man, an aging fighter pilot with a temper,
and the lack of judgment to pick a woman (how bold!) whom senior members of
his own party say flatly is unqualified, described by leaks from his own
campaign with words like "diva," "rogue," and "whack job."
What, pray tell, would "fair and balanced" coverage look like if it were not
hopelessly skewed to deny what is sitting there in plain view?
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
