Betsy's Page

Thursday, August 23, 2007

What if they gave a campaign and no one covered it?

Russ Smith makes an eminently reasonable point. Reporters and pundits should stop whining about how long the campaign for 2008 has become. No one is forcing them to cover it. They're the ones who are giving it the importance in political news that it has assumed.
One of the more irksome themes of this summer is the complaint among those mainstream journalists who comprise what’s called the “commentariat” or “punditocracy,” that presidential campaigns begin earlier and earlier every four years. This is not only condescending, but dishonest as well. If, in a fantasy world, the thousands of key-punchers who deride the number of polls and fund-raising totals released more than a year before the actual election, they could choose to ignore the entire process. In this scenario, no matter how desperately Mitt Romney attempts to become a household name through advertisements and attending public forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, if the media wasn’t there to cover every syllable the man utters, few Americans would even know the man existed.

The reality is that political reporters and columnists, and their editors, are thrilled with the “Permanent Campaign,” regardless of how much they grouse about lousy hotel accommodations and mind-numbing speeches. It’s a lot more fun, I imagine, than trying to decipher for readers the tiny print of a Congressional farm bill or pontificating about yet another rambling speech by Sen. Robert Byrd about the majesty of the institution he’s served in since about 1895.
We're being given an opportunity to really get a good look at how these candidates hold up over the long campaign. With all the media covering them, we'll be certain to get a good picture of gaffes or weaknesses they might have. Let's stop complaining that we are getting this opportunity to see them up close and personal.

And, as Smith points out, candidates in the past were certainly out there planning and working for campaigns for the presidency this early. We just didn't see them at it because of the lack of media technology to cover every little thing that they were doing.
Collins, Hertzberg and their colleagues ought to knock off the condescending comments and just write about politics—or not—without the mock apologies. After all, it’s only because of explosion in technology that Americans are privy to so much information about Hillary and Rudy and Mitt and Elizabeth Edwards. John F. Kennedy and his family were planning his 1960 presidential run several years in advance—no different than today’s crop of contenders—but it was mostly kept private from citizens because of the lack of media outlets. Were he running today, JFK would bask (and probably shine) in his YouTube moments.
Oh, wouldn't that have been fun. Just imagine the historical record if we'd had youtube for the 1860 campaign!
Labels: Election 2008, Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:04 AM 0 comments

Comments:

Russ Smith makes an eminently reasonable point. Reporters and pundits should stop whining about how long the campaign for 2008 has become. No one is forcing them to cover it. They're the ones who are giving it the importance in political news that it has assumed.

One of the more irksome themes of this summer is the complaint among those mainstream journalists who comprise what’s called the “commentariat” or “punditocracy,” that presidential campaigns begin earlier and earlier every four years. This is not only condescending, but dishonest as well. If, in a fantasy world, the thousands of key-punchers who deride the number of polls and fund-raising totals released more than a year before the actual election, they could choose to ignore the entire process. In this scenario, no matter how desperately Mitt Romney attempts to become a household name through advertisements and attending public forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, if the media wasn’t there to cover every syllable the man utters, few Americans would even know the man existed.

The reality is that political reporters and columnists, and their editors, are thrilled with the “Permanent Campaign,” regardless of how much they grouse about lousy hotel accommodations and mind-numbing speeches. It’s a lot more fun, I imagine, than trying to decipher for readers the tiny print of a Congressional farm bill or pontificating about yet another rambling speech by Sen. Robert Byrd about the majesty of the institution he’s served in since about 1895.

We're being given an opportunity to really get a good look at how these candidates hold up over the long campaign. With all the media covering them, we'll be certain to get a good picture of gaffes or weaknesses they might have. Let's stop complaining that we are getting this opportunity to see them up close and personal.

And, as Smith points out, candidates in the past were certainly out there planning and working for campaigns for the presidency this early. We just didn't see them at it because of the lack of media technology to cover every little thing that they were doing.

Collins, Hertzberg and their colleagues ought to knock off the condescending comments and just write about politics—or not—without the mock apologies. After all, it’s only because of explosion in technology that Americans are privy to so much information about Hillary and Rudy and Mitt and Elizabeth Edwards. John F. Kennedy and his family were planning his 1960 presidential run several years in advance—no different than today’s crop of contenders—but it was mostly kept private from citizens because of the lack of media outlets. Were he running today, JFK would bask (and probably shine) in his YouTube moments.

Oh, wouldn't that have been fun. Just imagine the historical record if we'd had youtube for the 1860 campaign!

Labels: Election 2008, Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:04 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Thursday, August 23, 2007

What if they gave a campaign and no one covered it?

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Thursday, August 23, 2007 What if they gave a campaign and no one covered it? Russ Smith makes an eminently reasonable point. Reporters and pundits should stop whining about how long the campaign for 2008 has become. No one is forcing them to cover it. They're the ones who are giving it the importance in political news that it has assumed. One of the more irksome themes of this summer is the complaint among those mainstream journalists who comprise what’s called the “commentariat” or “punditocracy,” that presidential campaigns begin earlier and earlier every four years. This is not only condescending, but dishonest as well. If, in a fantasy world, the thousands of key-punchers who deride the number of polls and fund-raising totals released more than a year before the actual election, they could choose to ignore the entire process. In this scenario, no matter how desperately Mitt Romney attempts to become a household name through advertisements and attending public forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, if the media wasn’t there to cover every syllable the man utters, few Americans would even know the man existed. The reality is that political reporters and columnists, and their editors, are thrilled with the “Permanent Campaign,” regardless of how much they grouse about lousy hotel accommodations and mind-numbing speeches. It’s a lot more fun, I imagine, than trying to decipher for readers the tiny print of a Congressional farm bill or pontificating about yet another rambling speech by Sen. Robert Byrd about the majesty of the institution he’s served in since about 1895. We're being given an opportunity to really get a good look at how these candidates hold up over the long campaign. With all the media covering them, we'll be certain to get a good picture of gaffes or weaknesses they might have. Let's stop complaining that we are getting this opportunity to see them up close and personal. And, as Smith points out, candidates in the past were certainly out there planning and working for campaigns for the presidency this early. We just didn't see them at it because of the lack of media technology to cover every little thing that they were doing. Collins, Hertzberg and their colleagues ought to knock off the condescending comments and just write about politics—or not—without the mock apologies. After all, it’s only because of explosion in technology that Americans are privy to so much information about Hillary and Rudy and Mitt and Elizabeth Edwards. John F. Kennedy and his family were planning his 1960 presidential run several years in advance—no different than today’s crop of contenders—but it was mostly kept private from citizens because of the lack of media outlets. Were he running today, JFK would bask (and probably shine) in his YouTube moments. Oh, wouldn't that have been fun. Just imagine the historical record if we'd had youtube for the 1860 campaign! Labels: Election 2008, Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:04 AM 0 comments Comments: Russ Smith makes an eminently reasonable point. Reporters and pundits should stop whining about how long the campaign for 2008 has become. No one is forcing them to cover it. They're the ones who are giving it the importance in political news that it has assumed. One of the more irksome themes of this summer is the complaint among those mainstream journalists who comprise what’s called the “commentariat” or “punditocracy,” that presidential campaigns begin earlier and earlier every four years. This is not only condescending, but dishonest as well. If, in a fantasy world, the thousands of key-punchers who deride the number of polls and fund-raising totals released more than a year before the actual election, they could choose to ignore the entire process. In this scenario, no matter how desperately Mitt Romney attempts to become a household name through advertisements and attending public forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, if the media wasn’t there to cover every syllable the man utters, few Americans would even know the man existed. The reality is that political reporters and columnists, and their editors, are thrilled with the “Permanent Campaign,” regardless of how much they grouse about lousy hotel accommodations and mind-numbing speeches. It’s a lot more fun, I imagine, than trying to decipher for readers the tiny print of a Congressional farm bill or pontificating about yet another rambling speech by Sen. Robert Byrd about the majesty of the institution he’s served in since about 1895. We're being given an opportunity to really get a good look at how these candidates hold up over the long campaign. With all the media covering them, we'll be certain to get a good picture of gaffes or weaknesses they might have. Let's stop complaining that we are getting this opportunity to see them up close and personal. And, as Smith points out, candidates in the past were certainly out there planning and working for campaigns for the presidency this early. We just didn't see them at it because of the lack of media technology to cover every little thing that they were doing. Collins, Hertzberg and their colleagues ought to knock off the condescending comments and just write about politics—or not—without the mock apologies. After all, it’s only because of explosion in technology that Americans are privy to so much information about Hillary and Rudy and Mitt and Elizabeth Edwards. John F. Kennedy and his family were planning his 1960 presidential run several years in advance—no different than today’s crop of contenders—but it was mostly kept private from citizens because of the lack of media outlets. Were he running today, JFK would bask (and probably shine) in his YouTube moments. Oh, wouldn't that have been fun. Just imagine the historical record if we'd had youtube for the 1860 campaign! Labels: Election 2008, Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:04 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment