The Wellesley Wire

This is our final project in the form of a nightly news story! Enjoy

Obama's Comment About Middle America

In response to “bittergate,” both the New York Times and the Stump fall victim to the media firestorm that emerged surrounding Barack Obama's comment. Both sources by and large contribute to the “sound and fury signifying nothing” that resulted from a comment that, if made in Pittsburgh rather than San Francisco, what have come off as empathetic rather than elitist. If we were to glean a lesson about the media from this episode, it would be that even highly reputable sources such as the New York Times and the New Republic will bite, and in the Times case perpetuate, a story that ought not have made the news at all. Perhaps the domination of cable news in setting the tone and replaying the tape forced the hand of the New York Times and The Stump, leaving readers hoping for discussions of the economy, health care, and foreign-policy were sorely disappointed.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?scp=9&sq=obama+bitter&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/12/clinton-campaign-further-strengthens-the-democratic-party.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/12/the-bright-side-of-obama-s-gaffe.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/14/so-are-working-class-people-bitter-or-not.aspx

Mark Penn Quits

The New Republic has seemed to be a primary source for gossip from within the Clinton campaign. While the New York Times article on the Penn firing presented no unique content (in focused on background as familiar to anyone following the story, and gave a run-of-the-mill sound bite from Maggie Williams), the new Republic emerged with juicy details about both Penn’s rivalry with Harold Ickes and his power play under campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Despite its venerated status as the paper of record, the New York Times was less interesting and less informative when it came to Mark Penn.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05penn.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07hillary.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=mark+penn&st=nyt&oref=login
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/11/is-mark-penn-the-new-quot-charlie-quot.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/09/does-it-matter-who-hillary-s-chief-strategist-is.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/07/is-penn-s-meeting-a-bigger-deal-than-goolsbee-s.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/06/mark-penn-out.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/28/penn-pals.aspx

Hillary's comment about Bosnia

The New York Times coverage Hillary's gaffe about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia is reflective of the mainstream media’s tendency to focus on horserace issues, including the impact that various mini-scandals have on public opinion. While the episode did cast doubt on Hillary’s credibility, the Times article failed to go much deeper than that and largely presented the story in a conventional way. The Stump, by contrast, used the Bosnia episode is an excuse to ignore the current election and debate the events of the mid-1990s. How well did the (Bill) Clinton administration perform in the Balkans, what role (if any) did Hillary play, and how could this shed light on her possible style as commander-in-chief? Because they are not obliged to cover the daily news, but are rather more focused on themes and trends, the Stump was able to use the Bosnia question as a launching pad to discuss issues of interest to them.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=hillary+bosnia+lie&scp=3&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?scp=5&sq=clinton+bosnia+sniper&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/01/the-hillary-bosnia-mystery-cont-d.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/24/hillary-in-tuzla.aspx

Obama's Race Speech

The New York Times’ coverage of Barack Obama's race speech in Philadelphia was simple and to the point; it presented the context in which Obama gave the speech, focused mostly on the content and tone of the speech, and provided a little commentary from Doug Wilder, the first African-American governor since Reconstruction. Absent from the New York Times was the fearmongering of Fox news in the referring of MSNBC - the Times was focused on presenting the facts in the barest possible form. The Stump, by contrast, given the numerous political, historical, and sociological questions surrounding the speech, was at the top of its game. Several Stump writers wrote in-depth articles in addition to their blog posts, and the Stump aptly debated the choices Obama managed, the intellectual influences he drew upon, and the likelihood that his speech would resonate with various demographics of voters.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18wright.html?scp=6&sq=obama+race+speech&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19obama.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20race.html?scp=7&sq=obama+race+speech&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/will-obama-s-speech-work.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/two-quickie-thoughts-about-the-obama-speech.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/obama-s-race-speech.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/17/obama-to-give-a-speech-on-race.aspx

Texas and Ohio Primaries

The New York Times’ coverage of the Texas and Ohio contests reflect their desire to report a good story, which sometimes comes at the expense of portraying accurate expectations. The Times's coverage of Clinton's “Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio” portrays Clinton as an underdog come back from the dead, while failing to mention that she, only two weeks before, led in both states by huge margins. The Times also fails to mention substantive dialogue that have been taking place over the past day for the primary, nor does it address the endorsements, especially in Ohio, who helped propel Clinton to victory. Finally, Obama gained ultimately one more delegates in Texas, rendering the headline “Big Wins” not only misleading, but actually false. The Stump’s coverage of the two primaries was surprisingly less insightful than usual, at showing the writers are less focused on horse race than the mainstream media and more focused on substance. The Stump’s content largely consisted of speculation as to who would win where, by how much, and why.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05primary.html?scp=3&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?scp=7&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/05/hillary-wins-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/latinos.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/over-there.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/stop-the-madness.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/two-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/the-day-after.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/where-today-will-leave-us.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/03/does-hillary-want-to-lose-the-texas-caucuses.aspx

McCain's "lobbyist scandal"

The scandal over John McCain’s relationship Vicki is a model case of the media taking story too far. The New York Times published a story based largely on anonymous sources alleging a relationship between John McCain and female lobbyist. In addition to controversy over reliance on anonymous sources (one of whom was likely an embittered former aide), the Times was criticized by many - including its own ombudsman - for injecting the rumor of an adulterous relationship into a story that, even without any sexual content, what have been notable for the hypocrisy of McCain relationship with lobbyists given his leadership on questions of campaign finance and ethics reform. Finally, is sent a time of publication. The Times apparently had this story written at the tail end of 2007, chose not to run it until late February, when McCain was the presumptive nominee. This raises the question of journalistic ethics and partisanship, which led the New York Times heavily criticized by conservatives, including McCain himself.

The Stump’s role in this story, like many in the media, centered on analyzing not the events in question, but the Times’ coverage. The Stump’s observation that “The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way” is more media criticism than it has political commentary. Likewise, a longer piece by the new Republic's Gabe Sherman details the controversy over the Iseman story within the New York Times newsroom. Since the New York Times made the final mistake of making news rather than recording it, the Stump was reduced to critiquing The Times’ editorial decisions.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/24/why-are-conservatives-so-delusional-about-the-mccain-story.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/21/the-story-behind-the-times-s-mccain-story.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/20/mccain-bombshell.aspx