POLITICAL MEDIA: Calling the definitive political balls and strikes and influencing the public’s opinion in this emerging and developing era of new media

The Lead

Our conversation centers on the realities and dynamics of news, coverage and commentary in politics, and the influence of political media on the public’s opinion in this era of new media.

Quote

This article was inspired by a piece on Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, the newly minted weekend host on MSNBC, and her clear frustration with how the media covers politics.

During her Sunday show, Harris-Perry discussed what she called “a dirty little secret” that those who cover “horse-race politics” like to keep under wraps. “We are suffering from premature speculation,” Harris-Perry said.

The 2012 Republican primary race has taken many sharp twists and turns. Harris-Perry showed headlines from leading news organizations that reflected the Republican primary’s constant change of course. Headlines read “Herman Cain, Frontrunner,” to “Another Poll Confirms Trump As Republican Frontrunner,” to “Ingraham: Perry Should Drop Out.”

“Headlines like these…expose the media for its secret wish to skip the foreplay and get right to the main event,” Harris-Perry said. “And it’s all left me very frustrated.”

SOURCE: Melissa Harris-Perry: The Media Suffers From ‘Premature Speculation’ (VIDEO) HUFFINGTON POST

Our Take

Mainstream media is doing its job as best it can in this new area of media the dynamics of which are changing nearly every news cycle of the week because of the impact of digital technology, blogging and the 24 hour news cycle.

There was a time when the media took the lead in shaping policy and influencing the public’s opinion. Thus, for example, when some of the giants of the media such as David Brinkley or Mike Wallace or Tom Brokaw aired a story and articulated a viewpoint, that view had some shelf life. It influenced the coverage of political news for several weeks, and over time influenced opinions, policy decisions and outcomes in political contests.

But, the good old days of political media and its influence in shaping public opinion are gone.

Today, a Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry can air a scholarly commentary on an important issue of public policy or a significant development in politics, and within minutes it can be shredded, and then lost forever in the court of public opinion. An attack can be mounted in minutes by bloggers; disseminated worldwide on the Internet within a few more minutes, and by the time of the talk shows on radio, TV and the Internet within hours on the same morning, afternoon and evening of the news cycle, be distorted and discredited.

So, Dr. Harris-Perry, we understand your frustration. But, the playing field and dynamics of political media have changed dramatically.

To be credible, informative and sustainable in today’s environment as a political analyst and commentator, you and others in the media will have to call the balls and strikes well before you step up to the plate, and well before you would have done so before the evolution of digital technology.

“And, that’s the way it is.”

 

MEDIA: has MSNBC lost its edge in its nighttime political coverage; will it have significant influence in election 2012?

Lead

Has MSNBC lost its edge in its nighttime political coverage?

In view of recent poll results, will MSNBC have significant influence in Election 2012?

Media (Quote)

It’s certainly obvious in Iowa that candidates are investing a lot more time in television interviews than they are on the campaign trail. It’s a safe bet: a recent New York Times/CBS News poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus participants showed that 37 percent said they get most of their information from Fox News, that’s compared with 27 percent who cited broadcast news and a mere 2 percent who said they relied on MSNBC.

Source:  Allessandra Stanley, “The Republican Primary Campaign in Iowa Is Right at Home on Fox News,” THE NEW YORK TIMES

MJB’s Take

It’s hard to imagine that the suits at MSNBC are taking the poll results well. The implications of  MSNBC having diminished influence in Election 2012 could be staggering.

Obviously, the only game in town for mainstream media coverage now on the Presidential political calendar is the ongoing GOP primary election season. Because of its conservative tilt, FOX News would be expected to have a slightly higher viewership and ratings advantage when it comes to general media coverage of national politics and the GOP.

But, one would think that because the choice of the Republican nominee for President is a matter of real public concern and interest,  a larger percentage of people would be watching the commentaries on MSNBC if for no other reason than to hear and consider opposing viewpoints about the GOP candidates, and their positions on national issues.

The numbers for the reception of broadcast news seem to be good. However, broadcast news is not as pointed, engaging, opinionated, informative and influential as cable news.

MSNBC has an all-star line-up of nighttime talk TV talent hosting the programs from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. including Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow. They are supported by diverse groups of commentators and contributors. The hosts and many of the commentators and contributors have been aggressive in criticizing the GOP candidates and their positions on issues. Those contrary viewpoints, of course,  add measurably to the body of information viewers and voters should be considering from now until general election day 2012.

The poll numbers for MSNBC were unusually weak. The fact that they were so lacking should be ringing bells and whistles loudly in the executive suites of MSNBC.

If MSNBC expects to boost viewership and have a significant measure of influence in the outcomes of the national elections, then major changes in its nighttime cable programming are warranted.

Related Web Articles

• MEDIA: FOX News has become mainstream media central for the GOP in politics (marcjan.wordpress.com)
• Andrew Breitbart: Why Would GOP Candidates Go On MSNBC, But Turn Down Trump? (mediaite.com)
• WATCH: Rachel Maddow Shames Tim Pawlenty (huffingtonpost.com)
• MSNBC’s O’Donnell Disses Santorum, Pitches Gay GOP Candidate Karger (pinkbananaworld.com)
• OBAMA: Chris Matthews-thrill is gone: are liberals concerned about President Barack Obama? (marcjan.wordpress.com)
• Rachel Maddow Takes On Fox News’ Coverage Of Gingrich Vs. Romney In The ‘Murdoch Primary’ (mediaite.com)
• SNL Mocks Al Sharpton And His MSNBC Show (mediaite.com)
• A Republican Primary Campaign Waged on Fox News – NYTimes.com (wpvins.wordpress.com)
• Ailes’ crowning moment? (variety.com)
• The Republican Primary Campaign in Iowa Is Right at Home on Fox News (nytimes.com)
• CAIN: ain’t no more Herman Cain for political media to beat on (marcjan.wordpress.com)
• Why Fox News viewers don’t like Mitt Romney: 4 theories (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

Also Read

• Why Fox News viewers don’t like Mitt Romney: 4 theories (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

Your comments are welcomed!

 

CAIN: ain’t no more Herman Cain for political media to beat on

Lead

Herman Cain has suspended his campaign.

By devoting extensive coverage seeking to humiliate Cain and to derail his candidacy, mainstream political media lost its way. It utterly failed  its fundamental role in American presidential politics to stay focused, and to adequately inform the American people about the issues of national concern on the business and affairs of the country, the presidency, and the Presidential candidates in the GOP race for the Republican nomination.

Media (Quote):

After Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign, other Republican presidential hopefuls praised him for energizing conservative voters and wished him well.

Source:  Danny Yadron, “Former Rivals Praise Herman Cain,” WSJ WASHINGTON WIRE BLOG

Query

Please take a moment and reflect.

If you wish to comment, that would be appreciated. But if not, please just take a moment and think.

Set aside the fact that Herman Cain is a Republican, that he is black and that he is conservative. Just reflect that up to now, he was a candidate in America for the GOP nomination to run for President in Election 2012.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with his philosophy, viewpoints and politics; whether you would have voted for him or not; Herman had every right as an American citizen to enter upon the playing field; to compete in the game of Presidential politics with Mitt, Rick, Newt, Jon, Michelle and Ron and whoever else seeking to run for President; and, to engage in conversations about the business and affairs of the nation.

This is still the United States of America.

Every qualified man and woman still has an unfettered right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to enter the race; to say whatever he or she wants to say; and, to do of course within reason whatever he or she wants to do to run for office; get his or her message out to the voters and seek the wins needed in the upcoming primary elections for GOP candidates who want to secure the nomination of the Republican Party, and run against Barack Obama in Election 2012 for President of the United States of America.

Whether Herman had $10 in the bank, or $10 Million, that was his fundamental right. And, it was taken from him.

How?

Not by the well-informed decision-making of voters at the ballot box.

But, essentially by the personal decisions of reporters, analysts, commentators, contributors, writers, editors and others in political media hot to trot about generating a torrent of media coverage concerning sex stories from three unhappy and unimportant women in the business and affairs of the nation anxious to tell their alleged stories from years gone by, but could never adequately explain why they wanted to tell their stories in the first place.

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened 14 years ago to the former National Restaurant Association staff employee who settled her claim, got paid, got another job, made another sexual harassment complaint and at least until one month ago was moving on with her life and career?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened to the former applicant for a job at the NRA who did nothing and said nothing for all these years about an alleged sexual assault which took place 13 years ago?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what allegedly has happening for 13 years  with a consenting women who allegedly was involved a love affair?

Mainstream political media should have been disciplined and stayed focused on the issues affecting the state of the union by keeping Americans informed about those issues and the positions of the GOP candidates on those issues. Just about every media outlet in the nation, however, got off mission,  went rogue, and wasted tons of ink and air time on what amounted to tabloid trivia.

It was mainstream political media coverage in prime time, to use the words of Ron Paul from another context: “beneath the office of the presidency.”

That’s our take, what’s yours?