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
Friday, May 9, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
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,
Another child said about Hillary Clinton,
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,
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,
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
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.
Overall an interesting article.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)