Wednesday, November 08, 2006
You were expecting something else?
Although basically everyone in the free world is talking about the election, I thought I would enlighten you with my own opinions about the online coverage of the races (even with timeliness aside, this crap is right up my alley).
Mere minutes after the polls closed in our great state, I checked Boston.com, which boldly declared victory for Patrick, even with only 3 precincts reporting. But I noticed that somewhat early this morning, the coverage was minimized into a small picture of Patrick and a small headline, "Patrick plots transition plan." I guess I understand the immediacy of online news and the belief that breaking news passes quickly, but the election was YESTERDAY. Not everyone has immediate internet access, and some people actual have lives and weren't slaving over the keyboards all night. I was too busy watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off and eating stir fry, to be honest.
Prof. Chuck Fountain, my History of Journalism professor, today said that while the results of this election were extraordinary, the coverage of the election was not. I have to agree. Despite the clear county-by-county results on CNN.com and the rapidly updated and written political opinion columns on Boston.com, the coverage fell flat. Why is no one analyzing what the election of the first black governor of Massachusetts (and the second black governor in American history) may mean? Why is no one delving into how politics in Mass. have been altered completely, as a woman posed a significant chance of being elected the first female governor of Mass.? And Nancy Pelosi! I'm ALREADY tired of people glossing over the fact that Pelosi will be the first woman to ever be Speaker of the House (but CNN's article is pretty comprehensive, so kudos to them).
The news coverage, even online, seems to be more shallow than most of the puddles I sloshed through to get to class today. I'm disappointed that journalists have missed the big picture with this election, which is certainly bound to alter the course of history. ¶ 4:46 PM
Mere minutes after the polls closed in our great state, I checked Boston.com, which boldly declared victory for Patrick, even with only 3 precincts reporting. But I noticed that somewhat early this morning, the coverage was minimized into a small picture of Patrick and a small headline, "Patrick plots transition plan." I guess I understand the immediacy of online news and the belief that breaking news passes quickly, but the election was YESTERDAY. Not everyone has immediate internet access, and some people actual have lives and weren't slaving over the keyboards all night. I was too busy watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off and eating stir fry, to be honest.
Prof. Chuck Fountain, my History of Journalism professor, today said that while the results of this election were extraordinary, the coverage of the election was not. I have to agree. Despite the clear county-by-county results on CNN.com and the rapidly updated and written political opinion columns on Boston.com, the coverage fell flat. Why is no one analyzing what the election of the first black governor of Massachusetts (and the second black governor in American history) may mean? Why is no one delving into how politics in Mass. have been altered completely, as a woman posed a significant chance of being elected the first female governor of Mass.? And Nancy Pelosi! I'm ALREADY tired of people glossing over the fact that Pelosi will be the first woman to ever be Speaker of the House (but CNN's article is pretty comprehensive, so kudos to them).
The news coverage, even online, seems to be more shallow than most of the puddles I sloshed through to get to class today. I'm disappointed that journalists have missed the big picture with this election, which is certainly bound to alter the course of history. ¶ 4:46 PM
