aggregating this week’s politicking, one blog at a time….
This is part of a weekly project I’ll be doing for the next few months. Here are the guidelines of the weekly posts:
Weekly posts will occur on Sunday, and will focus on one point of political interest during the week that got the most or most interesting response from the journalists/politicos alike.
The blog will compare three types of newsmedia that are commonly consumed on the internet:
1. Professed “objective” sources (mainly, www.nytimes.com and www.washingtonpost.com
2. Popular blogs from both sides (this will change every week)
3. “Literary” sources of journalism (ie. www.atlantic.com and www.newyorker.com
The point of this is is to analyze the way news is digested through different media lenses today. Furthermore, to examine the relationship between new media and journalism.
THIS WEEK:
OBAMA’S OLYMPIC FLOP (OR DOES IT MATTER)
Talkingpointsmemo.com
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/not_their_kinda_town.php
TPM, a well-known blog that leans to the left, used the reactions from other news sources as the primary fuel for their report. Josh Marshall’s article, “Not Their Kinda Town” voiced some level of approval for Obama’s decision, but wasn’t surprised about the outcome: “Good for Obama, for trying to get the Olympics for the USA and for his home town. But I have to say I’m not terribly surprised if the Olympic big-wigs were not crazy about being big-footed by the American president.”
Politico.com
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27857_Page2.html
In contrast, Politico responded in a more divisive matter, even from the title, “The agony of Obama’s defeat”, Josh Gerstein’s article is gratuitously snarky, in an underhanded way: “Monday-morning Quarterbacking became Washington’s favorite Olympic sport Friday after President Barack Obama’s in-person pitch failed to bring home the 2016 Olympics to Chicago – and in rather dramatic fashion.” Gerstein goes on to describe the Republican reaction to the event, noting “Republican commentators…didn’t hold back, painting the episode as a humiliating rejection of Obama’s claims to have made a sea-change in America’s reputation overseas.” Then supporting these with quotes from Republican talking heads, Gerstein does not directly make any claims. But the quotes, as outlandish as they are, paint a picture of utter failure from Obama. It really draws attention away from any failure on the media’s part—if anything, Gerstein notes the sympathy Republicans tried to have for him, by warning each other not to criticize him to much because they might seem “un-American”. Interesting use of rhetorical structure.
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/03obama.html?ref=sports
Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny’s article, “For Obama, an Unsuccessful Campaign” is thankfully more even-handed. The general sense of the article is encapsulated in the third graf: “the embarrassment will presumably fade in a news cycle or two. But it provides fodder for critics who are already using it as a metaphor for a president who, in their view, focuses on the wrong priorities and overestimates his capacity to persuade the world to follow his lead.” Futhermore, Baker and Zeleny spent a great deal of time explaining how the loss to Chicago was a surprise for a great deal of people. Chicago was expected to be a strong bid, not to come out last. Obama’s appearance, according to the article, was supposed to support the bid, not make it go from the bottom to number one. A very different take on the issue, focusing on the context more than the reactions.
Washington Post
Michael A. Fletcher’s and Anne E. Kornblut’s article “For Obama, No Payoff From Gamble of a Personal Pitch” took a similar stance on giving a better summary of what happened (not surprising given their different purpose). It is arguable this was a more even-handed article than even the New York Times’ article, as the 3rd graf explains, “It didn’t work. Olympic officials swiftly rejected Chicago’s bid Friday, leaving Obama disappointed and a bit philosophical as he explained why his effort fell flat.” The article goes on to explain, however, the very difficult situation the bid was in, and how there were any number of reasons as to why it didn’t work. The coverage was quite fair. The article noted Republican dissent, but well into the middle of the story. The real angle was the nature of the vote, and how it was somewhat of an extenuating circumstance. Arguably the most even-handed view.
Closer inspection reveals that The Atlantic and The New Yorker have a slower rate of turnover. Will return next week with a re-purposed use for these sources.
And that’s it for the week of September 27th through October 3rd! Until next week.
-Kellie Mejdrich
