Interesting topic. And I think I have a slightly different perspective than a lot of people. As a member of the media, I think that we (as a body) have a large influence. Take, for example, the fact that I work at a newspaper in Washington, and we have had all of the major primaries on A1. Never mind that some of the states are nowhere near here, or that we had our own primary this week.
I think one reason why the media is all over it is because it's a more novel election. We have:
- A Republican senator/former POW who is clearly in favor of the war;
- A female Democratic senator who is very much against the war;
- And a black male Democratic senator who is against the war, but not as much so as his opponent.
McCain, Clinton and Obama, as people, never mind their stances on anything, are uncommon. A POW. A woman. A black man.
If one of the Democrats wins, history will be made. It already has been made by them being the two front-runners. Geraldine Ferraro and Jesse Jackson couldn't get it done. Obama or Clinton very well may.
And that's news.
I started here in the spring of 2004, when Bush was running against Kerry, and it wasn't this big of a deal. I know it's different circumstances, but seriously, the attention that the media is giving this election is unfounded.
Obama, Clinton and McCain were all in Seattle two weeks ago, and you'd think that the earth exploded in terms of not only the media response, but also the public interest. I swear, half of the newsroom was out covering these events. Thousands of people had to be turned away from KeyArena, where Obama was speaking, because the entire arena was full. And to give prospective, it's a NBA arena, so we're talking big deal here.
I have never seen an election that has drawn so much media coverage -- or public interest, for that matter. Yes, you could make the argument that everyone knew Bush would run for a second term and Kerry was an easy pick for the Democrats in 2004, but there is just something that feels different this time. Like I said in the first election post we had on here, in January, we ran a box with the top 16 candidates in it on A1, and I said at the time that it blew my mind that there were even 16 people that were considered top candidates.
And because of its fixation on coverage of this election -- and the public's seemingly insatiable thirst for information -- I think the result largely will be decided by the media's influence. Because there is SO much coverage (especially if you factor in online news and news blogs), I think the trivialities and hearsay are getting fleshed out and addressed faster than usual.
As for me as a
person who ALSO is a member of the media, it's an odd place to be. We are encouraged to not attend things like rallies and caucuses, or to have bumper stickers or signs on our desks. And we are definitely not allowed to show political bias in the paper (other than Editorial).
But people obviously have their views and affiliations. And most media members, not surprisingly, are Democrats. (Add in the fact that Seattle is pretty liberal and it's
really no surprise.) Those of us that, uh, aren't, are pretty quiet about it. I didn't vote in our primary because we had to mark political affiliation. And if anyone could uncover their colleagues' choices, it would be reporters.
That being said, I wasn't surprised one bit when a ton of my co-workers came to into the newsroom two weeks ago saying they had been at Obama's rally.
