Al Qaeda and Obama

A recent article detailed the video response from Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy, which coldly acknowledged the election of Present-elect Obama.

In the video, Zawahri gave little to the election, saying that Obama's new face for the presidency is merely only masked "a hearted full of hatred." Additionally, Zawahri took swipes at Obama's personal character, calling him a hyprocrit and a traitor to his race, and compared him unfavorably to Malcolm X.

The article did a great job giving the significance of this comparison, as the article explained Zawahri's motives in bringing up Malcolm X and using descriptives such as "house negro" for Obama, Condoleza Rice, and Colin Powell, as Zawahri was trying to speak to the country's African-American muslims.

Also worth noting is that with the Zawahri's video uploaded on the webpage, being able to watch it gave another dimension to the story.

The article can be found here.

Obama and McCain meet

Well, now with the election over, the peaceful transition of power has begun. It's weird not turning on CNN or opening the newspaper to find pictures of Obama, McCain, and Palin plastered everywhere.

In a recent New York Times article, a post-election meeting between Obama and McCain was chronicled. After the election, there has been a general sense of calm after the storm with politics, and the article seems to reflect that.

It may be the fact that the quotes from the sources are generally calming and uniting, rather than the divisive, vicious comments that were constantly thrown at each other during the campaign cycle. It also may have to do with the fact that the reporter can now report on actual high level meetings, rather than pretty pointless, unimportant happenings (at least in the general scheme of things).

More than anything, I liked the historical perspective the article gave, when at the end it mentioned how Senator John Kerry didn't even wait a week to attack President George Bush after his defeat in 2004. It gives us a reminder that although this election was historic and monumental, it accomplishes the same thing with every election, and that it really isn't all that different.

The article can be found here.

President-elect Obama

So it is all finally over, and in a resounding mandate against the Bush presidency and a emphatic call for change, Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States with a landslide win.

It's hard to imagine that such a long, strenuous campaign season ended in such a lopsided vote, but everything takes a back seat the historical night that was last night.

Watching the returns on television (I preferred CNN's coverage), new technology was evident throughout the night, as it becomes more and more clear that the media's electronic medium is growing more and more prominent. On the web, I found CNN's online coverage to be exceptional, and I was very impressed with the New York Times' website's interactive features.

After the news broke that Barack Obama won the presidency, an exceptional job was done covering the significance of a truly historical event. Everything from video of Jesse Jackson tearing up at Grant Park to interviews with Civil Rights leaders, the emotive aspect of last night was not lost.

Even still, waking up this morning and seeing people on the news waiting in line for a newspaper is still a good sight to see. The print industry may be on its way to becoming obselete, but even still, there is nothing like a seeing a front page covering a monumental moment.

Calling the Election

The time has come, it is election day! Even more than who wins the Presidency, I am curious to see the final voting turnout numbers. After a few decades of staggering American voting turnout rates, it looks like the American people are excited and motivated to be apart of the political process.

In an article on the day of the election, the New York Times talked about the coverage of the election. No longer will people be waiting until the next morning to check out the headlines of the paper to find out who came out on the top (like in the good ol' Truman vs Dewey days), but people will be watching simultaneous coverage of the electoral count as it unfolds.

The article discusses how the television media, specifically the major networks, will go about calling the election, especially with an early landslide being a possibility.

The article was really interesting, as it touched upon most of the major networks for comment. Since networks will be relying on slow official ballot counts from the state and unreliable exit polls, networks are wary of reliving something along the lines of Tribune's gaff with Truman and Dewey. Even still, in today's competitive market, these networks are battling each other to be the first to announce the next President of the United States. With key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina all closing their polls early due to their eastern time zone, the networks could call the election by as early as 8 PM tonight.

Networks, publications, and online news mediums may have their fingers on the trigger, but don't expect these networks to pull a Tribune and declare Dewey the winner. When asked how Katie Couric will go about interpreting the polling data, Senior Vice President of CBS News Paul Friedman said it would be more along the lines of her reporting indications, such as “Given what we know about the results, or the projected results in various states, it’s beginning to look like it will be very difficult for John McCain to put together enough votes to win this election.”

Tune in soon to see how it unfolds.

The article can be found here.

Behind the Scenes

I'm back from a brief hiatus, and just in time, too. We're probably a little more than 30 hours away from finding out how this McCain Obama saga will play out.

The New York Times has vamped up its coverage of the Presidential election in the waning moments, but there was a specific article that I'd like to talk about.

In "Even Keel for Obama in Final Turn to Election," Jeff Zeleny takes an interesting approach to giving the nation a glimpse into Obama's campaign cycle so far.

From the start, I had to enlist the services of Google to find out what "even keel" meant (If something is on an even keel, it is balanced). The article differs from other coverage-based counterparts that report the happenings and issues circulating on the campaign trail. Much like the style of reporting we are currently learning about in the Jour-200 classroom, this feature is a hybrid between explanatory reporting and a profile feature.

The article gives light to information that readers did not know beforehand that would be particularly interesting - Obama is currently reading “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the C.I.A., Afghanistan and Bin Laden,” and occassionally reads US Weekly. Incredibly well-written, Zeleny uses everything from descriptive narration of Obama to quotes from his close friends and advisors.

Admittingly, I had mixed reactions to this when I first read it. In the midst of quite an important election, did I really want to spend my time reading a fluffy feel good article about the "behind-the-scenes" of campaigning? But the more I read, I found the timeliness and newsworthy aspects of the article to be at the heart of the article. Zeleny sought to bring to light the motivation and emotion behind the campaigning news that we read about on a daily basis. The article also discusses the political processes that happen behind the scenes, such as Obama's meetings with Senator Harry Reid and his phone calls with Secretary Henry Paulson.

Zeleny does a great job of incorporating his perception of what happens behind the scenes of Obama's campaign trail, while still bringing to light what really is important.

Needless to say, I, like the rest of the country, is on edge to find out how it all goes down tomorrow. Hopefully I can sneak in one more blog before either McCain or Obama gives his victory speech.

The article can be found here and I highly encourage all of you read it.

McCain and Unwanted Advice

A recent feature article discussed the role of Mike Murphy, the chair of John McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign, who has since alienated himself from McCain and his campaign staff.

Now an enemy of sorts with the McCain staff, Murphy has been highly critical of how the campaign has been run so far, using media mediums such as on-line blogging and cable television. Especially disturbing to the McCain campaign has been that Murphy has used MSNBC to sound off on McCain's campaign, a station which the campaign has treated like an enemy.

The article really does not go in-depth, primarily noting events that have occurred. It seems as if the article was a last second thought that was squeezed out before the deadline. The only sources the article quotes are some of Murphy's writings and another former McCain adviser, John Weaver.

At the end of the article, Mark McKinnon is mentioned. McKinnon was a high-ranking adviser in the McCain camp that left the campaign because he did not want to be involved in a campaign focused on tearing Barack Obama's campaign down. The article mentions that McKinnon declined to comment, but McKinnon's view on something like this would have been really interesting to hear.

McCain and Obama Palling Around

In a recent article on its website, the New York Times covered the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, which John McCain and Barack Obama both attended and spoke at.

The event was a lighthearted on in itself, as both candidates both took time to poke fun at each other and at themselves, much to the delight of the many distinguished guests present in the audience.

The article followed suit, as it was published on the website's political blog "The Caucus" rather than be its own separate article. Additionally, the article was written in a fun tone, capturing the spirit of the event.

Most importantly, the coverage of the event included video of the speeches given by the candidates, showing the multimedia medium in which today's newspapers have found themselves in.

Lastly, I must say it was refreshing not just to read a lighthearted article in the coverage of this election, but in general, it was great to see the candidates in such a light. Maybe politics need more humor and good fun.

If you guys have some time, really try and watch this video. I promise you it'll be worth it.



The article can be found here.

Race as an issue

A recent article in the New York Times' coverage of the upcoming Presidential election discussed the role the race could potentially have in the voting process.

The piece is written more as a contemplative piece more so than an actual report. As opposed to the article I chronicled in my previous post, this does not take the opinion of a few to be the general consensus of many, rather just reporting and discussing the opinions of a select few.

Of the sources interviewed in this article, all except one had three things in common. First, they all believed that race will play a big factor in the election. Secondly, they were all Democrats. Lastly, they were all African-Americans.

The only source that does not share these characteristics is Saul Anuzis, who is the chairman of the Republican Party in Michigan. Anuzis' only input to the article was that "he honestly doesn't know how big an issue race will be."

Although the article doesn't generalize the comments of the few sources, the lack of variety in the sources doesn't yield complete credibility to the article. Why not ask a caucasian democrat? How about an African-American Republican? Even a caucasian Republican would have been a good source of comment.

Especially noteworthy is that the article stresses the Obama's campaign's hopes that African Americans will come out in large numbers to support Obama. The article really can't make this assertion if the only sources are African-American Democrats.

On a personal side note, I wish the New York Times would give more attention to the other elections coming up this fall, especially the ones for the Senate. The Democrats potentially gaining a fillabuster-proof majority in the Senate is just as newsworthy - if not more - than the upcoming Presidential election. It definitely doesn't warrant this imbalance in coverage.

The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15race.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Concerned G.O.P.

In this article, the New York Times discusses growing concern in the Republican Party over Senator John McCain's diminishing prospects in this upcoming election.

The article gives insight from a variety of sources, primarily high-ranking Republican officials in key battle ground states. The general consensus from these sources are that McCain has been failing to win over voters, and that time is running out.

I found this to be far-reaching at times, seeing how the article really makes the opinions of a few people the general consensus of the entire party. Sure, the sources are high-ranking officials, but especially since the McCain campaign strongly refutes such pessimism.

The subject matter is a bit more abstract for a political issue, and there really is no concrete way to measure the growing concern in the Republican Party - this is much more of an opinion-based subject. I still thought the article could have given more credence and attention to those that disagree with the "growing concern" of the G.O.P.

The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/politics/12strategy.html?ref=politics

McCain and the New York Times

An article I recently read on the New York Times' website discussed Senator John McCain's campaigning techniques, especially focusing on how he now is shifting his attention towards criticizing and attacking Senator Barack Obama.

The article is the normal newspaper article covering the shifting nature of presidential campaigning. However, there are two things noticeable about it: the negative light in which McCain's campaign is portrayed, and an editorial that was printed in the same issue as this article.

The editorial I am referring to slammed the McCain campaign's techniques over the last few weeks, calling the campaign one of the "most appalling campaigns we can remember" and that "Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison."

And this article, which discusses how McCain has begun to "race through" the major issues of tax cuts, health care, and a spending freeze in order to spend the majority of his speech criticizing Obama's judgment and character.

Sure, even a completely objective assessment would put this approach to campaigning in a negative light, and McCain's campaign even acknowledged the shift from issues to criticizing Obama as a strategy to take the focus away from the failing economy, which is considered a weak point in voters' minds for McCain.

But still, reading an article like this makes me question the neutrality of the media. Of course conservatives have been railing on the media as being wildly liberal, and the McCain campaign responded to the editorial by accusing the NY Times of being "150% for Obama" and "an Obama advocacy organization".

And the media plays such an important role in electoral politics, and politics in general. Outside of direct contact from candidates and politicians (debates, speeches, etc.), people rely on the media to be a medium in which they can see an objective portrayal of them.

For example, the article is talking about the stump speeches that McCain and Governor Sarah Palin have been giving in key battleground states, but these speeches are given only to a few hundred in attendance, a great majority of whom are staunch supporters. The candidates and undecided voters alike are relying on the media to relay what happened to the public.

Even with debates, those that didn't watch the debate, and even many of those that do, turn to the media to get their take on what happened.

It's hard to imagine the editors of the Times plotting to cover this process in a consciously detrimental way for the conservatives. But even still, you would have to think that they would be sensitive to furthering the notion that the media is liberal while still working to objective report and cover the news.

This specific article, in my opinion, needed to be a little more conscious of this, especially in the light of the editorial that bashed McCain's campaign. Perhaps the article could have gotten insight from the McCain's campaign as to the thinking behind the change in champaigning strategy, rather than just observe what's going on.

The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?ref=politics
The editorial can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Catholics in Electoral Politics

In the midst of he said, she said, he said coverage of the presidential election thus far, it was very refreshing to run across this unique, interesting article that wasn't exactly time-sensitive, but still was relevant in the up coming election.

This article discusses where Catholics argue they should align on the political spectrum, with conservatives pushing the traditional social values of abortion and gay marriage, whereas liberals argue that the importance of the economy, health care, immigration, etc., are not only more important, but that the Catholic values are more aligned with liberal values on these issues.

On a personal note, I was relieved to read this article, seeing how I've been forever disgruntled that voters put more emphasis on social issues during elections like gay-marriage and abortion when there are other key issues that have a direct impact on the future of the nation. (for example, I am against abortion and somewhat against gay marriage, but I intend on voting for Obama this election, who, as the article points out, is for abortion and gay marriage). Although JFK was both a democrat and a catholic, I always assumed that catholics would vote Republican due to conservative, social values.

But regarding this article, I found it not only to be a great story idea, it was the perfect article for which the writer could get both sides of the argument-which is exactly what the article did. The article not only consulted the sources that this type of article would call for (bishops, cathedrals, etc.), but also found interesting stories, such as some liberal catholic groups.

The only thing I found peculiar was that the article focused a lot on the city of Scranton, Pennsylvania, which the article points out is the hometown of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Sure, the town is a blue-collar city dominated by catholics, but the article also points out that there are many other such cities in the country. Why not focus on one of those cities as opposed to the hometown of someone directly involved in the story? It seemed as if the writer was trying to take an interesting angle on the story, which I found to be unnecessary.

Lastly, I would have loved to hear what the two campaigns thought of this. I would only have to assume the writer contacted the campaigns for comment, and that there was no real response.

The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05catholic.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

The Vice Presidential Debate

Looking forward to and closely watching the vice presidential debate on Thursday night, I was eager to log on immediately after the debate came to a close to check out the New York Times' online coverage of it.

Sure enough, as soon as Gwen Eiffel ended the debate at Washington University in St. Louis, the New York Times already had an article up on its website. The article, written by Patrick Healy, was added to throughout the night as more information and insight came out.

The article's title did a good job of capturing the general sense of the debate as "cordial but pointed" and did and effective job of balancing focus on the political implications of the debate and the discussion of the key issues by the two vice presidential candidates.

Healy did a good job describing the back and forth action that took place between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, and careful observation of their debating techniques was relayed in the article through his descriptive analysis of their performance.

The article also does a good job of balancing reporting of the event and providing Healy's own research and information. Giving insight to the personal challenges of the candidates (Biden's loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident and Palin's newborn son with down syndrome), Healy gives context to where the candidates are coming from. Additionally, Healy corrects on false information exchanged during the debate, such as the time when Palin referred to General McClellan, when in fact she was speaking of General David McKiernan.

Although Healy seems to editorialize throughout the article in his description of the candidates' debating techniques, it is clear that the article intends to relay the journalist's perception of what went on during the debate, including how he felt the candidates performed.


The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03debate.html?ref=us