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

Obama Plagarism Scandal

In their coverage plagiarism scandal surrounding Senator Obama, the New York Times followed their usual quote-heavy style of presenting the story in terms of the arguments made by each candidate. The Times presents Clinton's accusations, tells the reader what Obama actually said and compares his statement to Deval Patrick’s 2006 speech, and presents Obama’s rebuttal to the charge. On balance, the coverage seems fair. One interesting element of the Times’ coverage by Jeff Zeleny, is the progression from the Times' own analysis on February 18 (headline of “An Obama Refrain Bears Echoes of a Governor’s Speeches”) the Times presenting Clinton's critique, albeit with Obama's rebuttal, on February 19 headline of “Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech.”

The Stump’s coverage took a largely analytical view; the blog assumed leaders had knowledge of the basic information presented in the Times articles, and instead asked deeper questions. What does this attack mean for poll numbers among various demographics? Does it demonstrate Clinton's desperation? Given the proliferation of speechwriters and common rhetoric, does any candidate not plagiarize? While it did not address the issue in specific posts on the plagiarism scandal, The Stump could have also explored the relationship between Patrick and Obama, which includes their common message of hope, transcendence of partisan labels, racial backgrounds, experiences in Chicago and at Harvard Law, and reliance on political consultant David Axelrod – all interesting comparisons that would never have made the Times’ article.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1203457352-aO68KdGXPxZj65Q+FIMcgA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/us/politics/18video.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=login
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/19/plagiarism-cont-d.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/quote-of-the-day-feb-18.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/the-plagiarism-charged-parsed.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/war-of-words.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/does-any-candidate-not-plagiarize.aspx

The next president? Ask a kid.

The Christian Science Monitor
"The next president? Ask a kid."
By Lisa Suhay
April 9th, 2008

Although it is very different to analyze an op-ed piece in the newspaper, this one stuck out enough to me that I thought I would share it. The article is written by an author of children's books and her main argument in the article is that kids are more aware of the subtleties of the candidates' personalities and that when many of us get to the voting booth we revert to children and vote based on these visceral emotions that we have about the candidates.

The author decided to interview kids in her town of Norfolk, VA. between the ages of 7-8 and made the observation that her town actually had quite a diverse population. She interviewed 14 different kids and the votes came down to John McCain 8 votes and Barack Obama 6 votes, Hillary Clinton zero votes. She also included sound bites from different kids. One child said about Senator McCain,

He looks really tough. I bet he's scary when he's mad.

Another child said about Hillary Clinton,

It's just not going to be a woman and if it was it'd be Oprah!

The article really bothered me. It was completely reliant on pop psychology and it made broad generalizations based on 14 children.

First of all she never mentioned how strongly children are affected by the opinions of the people around them, as well as the messages given to them in the media. Children are also completely indoctrinated in society's racial and gender stereotypes by the age of 7, unless they are completely sheltered from mainstream culture and society. Her thesis seems to be that when we as voters reach the booth we are,

So overwhelmed by all the conflicting information, slick ads, and responsibility of the action [we] are about to take that [we] just fall back on listening to [our] inner child.

While I agree that strange things happen in the voting booth, I don't think its our emotionally wise and perceptive inner child that comes out, rather its the voice of all the media's framing and the those slick campaign ads that ends up deciding who we vote for, whether we our aware of it or not.

I recognize that her article actually wasn't trying to imply that we vote for the best candidate or even the most honest, but I think that whatever her point was, it was lost in the article. Ms. Suhay ends her article saying,

Instead of putting millions of dollars a week into campaign ads and polls from now until November, maybe candidates should donate a chunk to early education programs. That way everybody wins.

While I don't disagree with the importance of giving money to education, her logic doesn't fit. Essentially she is saying that before the campaign adds and months of touring the country even gets started, the winner of the race is already pre-determined based on how we will react to them on a gut instinct level; those ads have little to no effect at all, so the candidates might as well just give their money to early education programs and hope that will endear them to the little kids? I think she might want to rethink this article.

I am a little disappointed that the Christian Science Monitor picked this article for their op-ed section, although I am not surprised. There are very few women who get chosen to write for the op-ed section of any newspaper, so it is encouraging to see a woman picked, but it is discouraging that the article follows every stereotype about 'women's issues' and women's interest in politics.

Obama, Obama and Jay-Z

Kotecki TV for the Weeks of 4/7, 4/14 and 4/21

4/7/08

Mark Penn is resigned because his firm doesn’t agree with the campaign on most of the major policy issues. Which Kotecki says, might have something to do is why she is the underdog.

Obama tries to distance himself from Radio TalkShow host who described McCain as a warmonger. Kotecki breaks it down essay style.

Then Kotecki compares Penn’s stepping down as equivilent to Obama’s NAFTA/Canada error earlier on and that the distance from the Talk show host is equivilent to Bill Cunningham bashing Obama when introducing McCain. This election has gone on so long that the campaigns are stealing each other’s gaffs.

Notes: What starts out as substantive breaks down into a mistake comparison by the end of the show.

4/15/08

Kentucky congressman apologizes for calling Obama a snake oil salesman, and saying “that boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.” There was apparently some tension between the two during a national security simulation.

Obama apparently attended a party hosted by a Chicago real estate developer now on trial, to court an Iraqi investor. Obama denies attending any such event.

Bill Clinton is caught saying that he’s seen signs about not being bitter when he hasn’t actually seen any such signs.

Note: Lots of news on Obama today, mostly on non-substantive stuff such as what other people said about him and the sort of parties he may or may not have attended.

4/18/08

Bill Aires a member of the Weather Underground a group that put bombs near government buildings during Vietnam, is connected with Obama.

Kotecki says that the conclusion from this is that Vietnam can’t be escaped in any election.

Obama uses a Jay-Z dance move to describe how he shrugs off Clinton’s attacks. Kotecki notes that while it may gain him credibility with younger voters, it won’t help him with older blue collar voters that are traditionally associated with Clinton.

4/24/08

McCain asks the North Carolina party to stop using ads that use lines from Obama’s inflammatory pastor to attack gubernatorial candidates who have endorsed Obama.

Obama is also having a hard time attracting older voters, many of whom are loyal to Clinton.

Exciting primaries in Indiana and North Carolina coming up and caucuses in Guam, four delegates up for grab in the caucuses.

Election 2008: The Movie! Coming Soon.

NPR's Talk of the Nation for the week of 3/31

4/2/08

Three weeks until Pennsylvania, McCain draws up a list of possible VPs, Democrats don’t know what to do about Florida and Michigan still.

Hillary holds Pennsylvania with a strong lead over all other contenders including McCain. They are also holding a “dream ticket” contest on the show today.

Obama continues to mount a good fight in Pennsylvania despite the strong lead that Hillary holds in the state. They go on to examine how the votes might play out and how the race if effecting the party.

Polling data is discussed in depth regarding Pennsylvania polls in comparison to two different states. In this poll, in these three states, Hillary does significantly better then Obama when matched against Senator McCain. But according to the polls about half don’t care about race or gender in this race. Senator Obama has also handled the race issues better by about 10% of voters. Hillary still has the highest negative numbers of any of the candidates.



Kotecki TV for the Week of 3/31

3/31/08

Obama has compared the campaign to a good movie that has lasted too long, Hillary said she likes long movies. When asked what her favorite movie is Clinton responded: This one! Kotecki then points out the problematic tendencies of long movies, and splits apart Clinton’s possible meanings behind saying that this might mean that Clinton is simply in the race to entertain herself. He also digs into Clinton’s financial situation and debts related to the campaign for the rallies, catering and stage technicians.

Obama has exciting social engineering plans, using the presidency to help change American culture.

Notes: Clinton’s words get pulled apart, on non-substantive issues, and examined closely despite the fact that they have very little bearing on the race.

4/4/08

Obama is holding a raffle for young voters who help to register new voters, the winner wins a three on three basketball game with Obama.

Hillary Clinton accused of saying that Obama can’t win the election, she denied the claim, but hasn’t quiet said that he could win, only that a democrat will be in office in January. Kotecki toys with what exactly she means by saying that.

Superdelegates are worried about endorsing a candidate because it might effect their own electability.

Notes: Once again Clinton’s words are spliced apart for hidden meanings.

Sinbad Makes Headlines... Sort of...

Kotecki TV for the week of 3/24

3/25/08

Hillary’s gaff over sniper fire leads and takes the focus, in fact more time is spend on the fact that Sinbad (an Obama supporter) broke the story then on the actual story, although details and specifics were provided in terms of the quote that got her in trouble, and all of the contrary evidence.

Democrats plan to hammer McCain on his being in Iraq for 100 years, despite the fact that McCain was talking about a peaceful force there, like in Germany.

Notes: Gaffs, not substance lead again, there is some strategy on the part of the democrats and put into some fairly detailed context.

3/28/08

Puerto Rican government has endorsed Obama.

Kotecki puts up some statistics on how many Americans think Obama is a Muslim, (10%) and of those who’ve heard the stories about his inflammatory Pastor that number drops only to 9%. Kotecki then makes fun of Americans who still think that Obama is a Muslim and the lack of attacks on him for real issues.

McCain campaigned with Mitt Romney very happily in Salt Lake City, saying they are putting the past behind them.

Clinton's Pennsylvania victory gives campaign new life

The Christian Science Monitor
"Clinton's Pennsylvania victory gives campaign new life"
By Linda Feldmann
April 24th, 2008


Ms. Feldmann's article comes right after Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania over Senator Barack Obama by 10% and addresses the fact that Clinton's win came just in time to give her campaign enough 'umph' to last until the convention.

The frame that Ms. Feldmann uses is very in-sync with the mainstream media's frame. The article actually frames Mrs. Clinton's win in two ways; the first frame was that Clinton had to win Pennsylvania by double digits to stay in the election, and Ms. Feldmann also framed Clinton's win in comparison with her win in Ohio and her the upcoming primary in Indiana.

Ms. Feldmann says that Clinton had to win this for a few reasons; first of she was running too far behind in delegates (not counting super delegates), and secondly part of her platform is that Obama can't win the bigger states and she once again proved this.

Indiana's race on May 6th, will be another important race for her to win according to the article because it has similar demographics to both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The article also briefly mentions how Clinton's solid win has given the 300 unpledged super delegates more time to decide which candidate to back, which is good for Clinton because she is ahead in super delegates but not by a lot. The article gives a sentence explanation on super delegates, but implies a certain base level of how democratic primary politics work.

The next bulk of the article was dedicated to discussing different reasons that contributed to Clinton's win including Obama's comment about guns and God. The article assumed previous knowledge about Obama's gaffe. An interesting note that the article addresses is that Clinton won in a demographic that Obama usually dominates, white voters between the ages of 18 and 29. Another contributing factor is Hillary's strength when it comes to the economy because that is the number 1 issue to voters in PA.

I really like the last paragraph of the article that represented a frame that I haven't really seen among the media. Ms. Feldmann addresses the fact that the on going struggle between the two candidates might not be such a bad thing if the party can unite after a candidate is chosen.

In Pennsylvania alone, the party registered 326,000 new voters, some of them first time voters and others switching their registration from independent or Republican. If the party can unite in the fall and get over the bruised feelings from the primaries, the Democrats could be hard to beat.

Overall an interesting article.

From mistakes, Clinton has learned, adjusted

The Christian Science Monitor
From mistakes, Clinton has learned, adjusted
By Linda Feldmann
April 16th, 2008

The Christian Science Monitor has impressed me so far with their balanced, fact-based, well written and interesting articles that often break the frame that most of the media use, though are still within the context that a reader can understand. This article completely breaks the frame that surrounds Democratic Presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton. The article offers an alternative frame in which Clinton is a uniter rather than a divider. She is portrayed as a woman who has made mistakes but learns from them, as a person who cares deeply for her fellow human beings. She is portrayed as a hard worker who cares more about getting things done rather than getting credit for them and as someone who is held in great esteem by her colleagues and friends.

In my class at Wellesley College, Mass Media in American Democracy, we learned that often the media doesn't publish things that don't fit into the frame that already surrounds the event, person or idea but the Christian Science Monitor has done just that. Regardless of how you feel about Senator Clinton, I would recommend reading this article! I have previously mentioned how often it is easy to tell what a journalists opinion is regardless of whether or not their article is op-ed, and I believe that Miss Feldmann's article is surprisingly neutral despite the fact that her writing a piece that goes against the general consensus is probably an indication of her views.

'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?

The Christian Science Monitor
'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?
By Alexandra Marks
April 10th, 2008

All the candidates running for the presidential nomination have messages of change. Senator John McCain promises to clean up Washington's "spendthrift ways"; Senator Hillary Clinton wants to change "the failed policies and the wrong-headed priorities of this administration;" and the candidate whose campaign is based on his promise of change, Senator Barack Obama vows to change Washington so that it is more united and open to the voices of the average American. There have been many discussions in the media, both mainstream and alternative, about whether or not any of these candidates are genuine in their promises of change, and there have been many discussions about which candidate wants to bring about the 'right' kind of change, but Alexandra Marks' article offers a totally different frame. Miss Marks analyzes whether the change these candidates offer is actually possible.


Ms. Marks offers the context of past presidents who were able to usher in change, and the environment that allowed them to be successful. There have been relatively few presidents in the past century that have successfully ushered in change Marks states; The Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy and Reagan are the only four who have accomplished change. Not only were all these men great orators, but they also had the political skills to work around a slow and often difficult congress, and they also all had the political climate on their sides: the people of the US wanted change.

Marks cites different polls saying that about 80% of Americans want change; which means the political climate is good for whichever candidate wins the election.

Marks then prefaces the next section of her article with a quote from an expert that warns that it is impossible to know how effective a person will be as president, until they are actually in the Oval office. Marks notes that although both the Democratic candidates have touted themselves as the candidate of change their policies aren't that different from each other. Yet it is Obama who has captured the American people in their belief in his ability to bring about change.

Marks then goes through the different steps a president needs to be successful about bringing about change. First the candidate needs to have the oratory skills to win the hearts and minds of the American people; Obama has the clear advantage. They also need to be able to pass their bills through congress and it is here that Clinton has the advantage.

Miss Marks interviewed a professor from Brown University who says that Hillary doesn't have the grassroots support that is needed to bring about change. She also briefly notes that McCain is actually the candidate perceived as having the 'right experience' to be the new president.

The article ends though with the note that although Obama has the most ingredients to make him the candidate most likely able to bring about change because,

"He has a unique status as an outsider who also has Washington experience and he is someone who can inspire people,"

many people are still skeptical that, even with all those ingredients, he will be able to bring about substantial change.

Overall a very well written article. Often times it is easy to discern what the actual opinion of the journalist is, but I was unable to do so with Ms. Marks. The article didn't quite fall into the framing trap on the characters of the candidates like other newspapers. Most newspapers, I believe, would have focused much more strongly on Obama's message of change, wouldn't have mentioned McCain at all, and wouldn't have mentioned Hillary Clinton's promise of change because that doesn't fit with the frame the media has given her. I appreciate the efforts of this newspaper and author. Out of the three 'experts' cited, all were male.

Christian Science Monitor: Did Obama's Pastor Preach Hate?

The Christian Science Monitor
"Did Obama's Pastor Preach Hate?"
By Jane Lampman
March 28th, 2008

Jane Lampman's article on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, previous pastor to Democratic hopeful, Barack Obama, was the best I have seen on the topic. The article asks the question, "When does speaking out against injustices cross into hate speech?" and attempts to answer whether Rev. Wright's speech was hate speech or not.

The article assumes previous knowledge of the Reverend's controversial comments. However it does offer a bit of background as to why the comments are so controversial, saying that it is in part due to the close Democratic Primary and in part because the comments

Pose a stark question about America's cross-racial discourse.

The article goes on to quote Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic Presidential nomination, who states that she would never have Rev. Wright as her pastor, and then the article interestingly enough quotes Mike Huckabee, who dropped out of the Republican race for their nomination, saying,

Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment, and you have to just say, `I probably would, too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder, had it been me.'

Although I admit that I know little of Mr. Huckabee, I was surprised by his comment.

Ms. Lampman goes on to quote people in the religious community who say that Rev. Wright's comments have been taken out of context and misinterpreted. For example, when Rev. Wright said, "God damn America," he was speaking to God's condemnation of acts of oppression. The article then goes on to give more context to the rest of the speech, that not even The Daily Show gave, although they are known for giving more comprehensive clips and sound bites.

The article offers some insight into the black churches of America, which helps to give even more context to the comments. It also offers a more complex view of Rev. Wright as a man who has seen his church grow from 87 members to over 10,000.

Overall a very balanced article that acknowledged the inappropriateness of Rev. Wright's comments while also presenting a different frame from the mainstream media's. Also, out of the four 'experts' interviewed in this article one of them was a woman. This article was also interesting because besides acknowledging the importance these comments potentially have on the Democratic presidential campaign, they avoided talking about Obama at all. I thought this was very appropriate because the attention the media has been giving to Obama about these comments is unfair; he didn't say them, and just because he went to Rev. Wright's church doesn't mean he agrees with the man on everything.

Rushing to Register? Limbaugh’s efforts not yet showing signs of big effects in Pennsylvania

The Christian Science Monitor
"Rushing to register? Limbaugh’s efforts not yet showing signs of big effects in Pennsylvania"
By Dante Chinni
March 27th, 2008

In the Christian Science Monitor on March 27th, there was a really interesting article that was different from the other articles I've read. Instead of being about the pressing issues of the campaign or even about the candidates themselves, this article was about a neoconservative radio show host's effort to sabotage the Democratic party by urging Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. The reason? So that the Democratic party stays divided longer and gives the Republicans a greater advantage going into the actual election for President.

In PA you have to be a registered Democrat to vote in the primary, unlike some other states, and so far 51,000 people have switched to vote in the Democratic primary, and there are still three days left to register! Mr. Chinni, the author of the article, looked closer at this data and determined that if the switches came in heavily conservative areas they very well could be Limbaugh people, whereas if the switches came from more liberal areas their switch was most likely unrelated. The results were that about 23,000 of those switches were in counties that had previously voted for Bush, so were more conservative, an interesting find.

Despite all this, it is really hard to determine how much of an impact Limbaugh's open sabotage plan will have the election.

One possibility that the author didn't cover is that many of those switches could come from voters who don't want to elect another Republican after 8 years of a disastrous Republican President.

The article quoted two 'experts' who were both men, and the article itself was written by a man. The article had minimal framing and was purely presenting the facts.

The Daily Show: A Quite Week

The week of April 14th, 2008 has been a quiet week in terms of election news, but the Daily Show did cover Obama's recent infamous comment about the personality of western Pennsylvania.

Stewart opens the segment by saying that it is almost a mathematical certainty that Obama will go into the convention with more votes and more delegates, non super, than Hillary Clinton. And then he frames the recording of Obama by saying that it would take,

Some sort of egregious, self inflicted, undiplomatic, poorly recorded semi-truth by Obama.

He then plays a rather long clip of Obama's radio recorded voice saying,

You go into some of those small towns in Pennsylvania...the jobs have been gone
now for 25 years...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy
to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...

Jon Stewart, with his sarcastic and witty comments responds to this quote by saying that it is "Outrageous" because the people of Western PA don't turn to God and guns and mistrust of foreigners because of a downturn in the economy, rather it is the heart and soul of what they are made of. Essentially Stewart is agreeing with Obama's statement, and then he goes even further and says that he would hope that his president was elite or better than him, purposely changing the connotation that the word "elite" has in the American political sphere.

Stewart then plays clips from numerous different mainstream news stations that clearly misquote, misinterpret and exaggerate Obama's statement rather unfairly (they do this to Hillary's words all the time). Although it is frustrating to see Stewart blatantly support Obama, I commend him on trying to present a different frame, especially since the media is blatantly taking Obama's sentiment too far.

It is frustrating though when seconds later he played short clips of Hillary and tries to make her look untrustworthy and insincere. It is the first time that Stewart has clearly taken sides on the Democratic election although the past month has seen him becoming increasingly more favorable to Obama.

The Daily Show: Dick Move of the Week

Although not too much about the election on April 8th, 2008, The Daily Show does introduce a "Dick Move of the Week" segment which talks about how the Obama campaign was giving out free Dave Matthew's Band tickets at the same time that Bill Clinton was giving a speech on the same campus. It is interesting because although he calls it the 'Dick Move', the way he presents it is rather hilarious and incredulous. He doesn't make a judgement on the event really, and unlike a mainstream news show might do he doesn't talk about how it reflects on Obama as a candidate.

There was also a special section called "Back in Black: Celeb Endorsements" which is a special section by a correspondant on his show, Lewis Black. This segment made fun of the celebrity endorsments that happen. It was interesting because this was one of the first shows that actually mentioned John McCain (he recieved a celebrity nomination from a character on the Hills). There was an interesting Obama tilt. Out of about 7 or 8 celebrities quoted for endorsing one candidate or the other, they only showed one endorsing Hillary (Laura Linny), who also happened to be one of the two women shown (the other being Oprah, of course). Also for one of the celebrities, Stewart makes the claim that we shouldn't bother to listen to celebrities because what do they know? But then he shows a clip of the same celebrity sounding extremely intelligent while talking about real issues and why he supports Obama.

This show was one of the view that had a woman interviewed. Cokey Roberts was interviewed for her newly released book, "Ladies of Liberty" about the first ladies of young America.

The Daily Show: Barack's Bowling for Votes

The Pennsylvania primary is coming up in a little less than month, and Barack is moving around the state connecting with the 'Reagan Democratics' according to the Daily Show on April 1st, 2008. The Daily Show has consistantly gotten more and more openly in favor of Obama, I wonder if this has anything with the writers coming back? Impossible to say. But it would be interesting to know the gender rundown of The Daily Show's writers. That is not to say that the gender of the writers is directly in correlation to which candidate they support, although it is a possibility, but regardless it would be an interesting fact to know.

Anyways, in this episode Jon Stewart blatantly makes fun of the mainstream media's rather ridiculous framing of Barack Obama's gutterball while bowling in PA. He shows clips of the media framing this in terms of his masculinity, as well as undercurrents of racism, for example one anchor says something along the lines of, "He should stick to basketball". Stewart takes great delight in pointing out that Barack's bowling skills don't have any bearing on his ability to lead the country.

Although the show has been rather biased lately in favor of Obama, I commend the show for also making fun of the media's opinion that Hillary is hurting the democratic party by not dropping out. He played clips from at least 6 different mainstream nightly news shows that all were implying that Hillary should drop out of the race by a certain date because she is hurting the democratic party. It was funny because although all the clips had the same frame they had vastly different dates of when she should drop out by. Stewart says something to the effect of, "Oh no, there's too much democracy".




This episode was full of information on the upcoming 2008 Presidential election! Stewart also had one of his correspondants interview a 21 year old college student who also happens to be a super delegate. It was very interesting, but I wish they would have framed it differently. Instead of focusing on how cool it is for a young person to be involved in the democratic process of our country, they framed it in the sense that he wasn't representative of American youth (example, he like to listen to Celion Dion and his favorite movie was Love Actually). I wish they would have given more background; I would have liked to know how he got chosen to be a super delegate. It was nice though that the show took a tiny bit of time to talk about what a super delegate was, though the information they imparted about that was weak at best. This episode also had all men.