Off the Bus

Jon Garfunkel — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:16:24 -0500

I'm still failing to see how "Off the Bus" is any different from any other blog/press coverage... Amanda and Zack are nice folks, I've met them both, but under what sort of metrics is their coverage better?

There's no way to view the archives, so it's very difficult to compare. The Nevada caucus coverage is telling:

On January 18th, "psericks" (who he?) blogs:

"On the eve of the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign is again betting against voter turnout, making encouraging statements about a lawsuit that would have shut down nine caucus locations and disenfranchised tens of thousands of shifts workers just hours before the caucus --- with little chance to make other plans to participate."

(psericks was merely repeating what he read in that ol' standby of horserace coverage, the MSM-- specifically, the Las Vegas Sun.)

But, after the caucus, Zack Exley was telling a different story:
"Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing. ... Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference."

Obviously, Zack had put a lot of time into this story (a habit of the ol' MSM) and couldn't quite abandon it (another MSM habit). But the rest of Off The Bus was making the case that it was dirty politics that would put Clinton over the top (Meanwhile, as was reported elsewhere, Obama still won in the delegate count.)

I read the NYT coverage as well. It briefly noted the lawsuite, as well as this point: "The campaign took on an increasingly negative tone, with phone calls identifying Mr. Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama' and Spanish language radio ads suggesting that Mrs. Clinton 'does not respect our people.'"

Aha, this is interesting. So I go Google around, and learn about anonymous robocalls, and their inconsistent enforcement at the state level. Elsewhere on Off the Bus I read about the whisper campaign against Obama in S.C.-- via flyers handed out through church membership.

So here's what I'd like to see: something like UPenn's FactCheck.org, but strictly covering dirty tricks and rumor campaigns, and using investigative journalism skills to figure out who's behind them.

Daily Digest: Does Campaign Coverage Suck?

Joshua Levy — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:00:17 -0500

Jay Rosen explains why campaign coverage sucks, but does it nicely; Zack Exley gets in-depth about the Clinton campaign's field operation; political journalists are Twittering; allegations of voter suppression from the Clinton campaign in Nevada are gaining traction; expat Democrats can now vote in the primaries online; Micah Sifry schools Brian Lehrer on online political video; Duncan Hunter drops out; and Fred Thompson is still in it for now, though is obits are being written anyway.

techPresident - Daily Digest: Does Campaign Coverage Suck? - Comments

Off the Bus

Daily Digest: Does Campaign Coverage Suck?