Political Lunch 09-23-08: 150 Strategy Snack
September 23, 2008
For your Snack, Rob introduces the highly effective 150 Strategy and looks at its impact on the campaign trail, from John McCain all the way back to John Adams.
Formats available:Quicktime (.mov), MPEG-4 Video (.m4v), Flash Video (.flv)
Comments
3 Responses to “Political Lunch 09-23-08: 150 Strategy Snack”
Got something to say?
Rob,
I applaud your efforts to call out untruths from both sides, but why attack a statement that everything NY Times reports is influenced by their liberal bias? Isn’t that self-evident? It is a stretch to say they’re no longer a journalistic organization (fair point), only because the election and partisan politics in general make up but a small percentage of what is printed in a given day’s paper. However, if you take the intent of the statement, that journalism (in the meaning of objective reporting of the facts) is no longer a factor in their election reporting, then that is resoundingly true. It is clear that all of their election coverage is driven by an agenda that favors the Democrat.
Case in point: the non-journalistic printing of the “sex scandal” with a former lobbyist a few months ago.
I appreciate your rebuttal.
Sean
Boy was I lost when you broke out the statistical graphs, Rob. But I stuck it out and finally grasped what you were talking about. This one deserves another watching to full comprehend. ;)
Travis -
You’re being too kind to me, and I appreciate it. :-)
Sean -
Thanks for your recent comments. I may have been a bit too protective of the NY Times on Tuesday, probably because I was using them as an example. In this case, I fully support the Times because the story was entirely legitimate and relevant, particularly because McCain has been promising to rid Washington of lobbyist influence. I think the NY Times simply became an easy scapegoat for Schmidt.
And while I agree that political perspective naturally taints editorial decisions, I don’t believe that The NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, or any other major paper is entirely driven by that in their coverage of the candidates, certainly not to the point that they would ignore basic facts. While television and radio coverage have become dominated by single personalities (e.g. conservative O’Reilly; liberal Olberman), newspapers are managing hundreds of reporters and dozens of editors, with a wide range of opinions between them. Perhaps more importantly, unlike television and radio, print reporters are more likely to succeed in the long run on the basis of credibility rather than popularity.
That said, there is of course plenty of editorial perspective that leaks through. For instance, two of my favorite headlines from today deliver very different messages:
Washington Times: “McCain Steps Up in Maverick Style”
LA Times: “John McCain Seeks to Postpone Debate”
All things considered, my problem is not that Schmidt claimed the Times was biased, but that he reached so far into the absurd that it was clearly a stage show rather than an actual assertion. As with all sources, I take the newspapers with a grain of salt, and I take campaign spin with a ten pound block of salt.
Thanks for watching the show. I hope we’ll hear more from you in the future.
Best
- Rob