Journalistic Question about the Politics Board

[nosignofland]

I've enjoyed lurking on the politics board the last few weeks and I've gobbled up all the YouTube links, outside videos and blogs. And I'm still left wanting more.

It's entertaining, informative and, apparently, immensely popular.

What I'm wondering is why we, the mainstream media, aren't doing the same. Wouldn't this be the perfect time for video? Instead of a YouTube guy asking, "Is Barack Obama a terrorist?" to the conservative extremists, why isn't a journalist examining the fringe?

Why can't we cover those sidewalk screams (the McCain supporters yelling at the protesters) instead of an Obama supporter holding a shaky hand-held camera? Were those yells (An old woman telling Obama protesters she didn't care if their friends were raped, for example) reflective of Bum****? Or just the fringe? How big is the fringe?

Now, I'm sorry if I'm using two examples that don't look kindly on the McCain campaign --- and I don't mean to slam one group or another (there's enough of that on the politics board). But I think those are two good examples. I'm sure you could do the same with the Obama campaign --- maybe juxtapose the protesters at a McCain rally to those at the Obama rally for good measure.

I just find it odd that a bunch of journalists seeking information on Middle America's (or at least the ignorant conservative crazies or the uninformed radical liberals of Middle America) disdain for Obama aren't pointing their colleagues to other newspapers. There's very little, "Read this NYT blog" or "Look at this WaPo video"; it's a majority of YouTube links. So if journalists aren't turning toward newspapers for similar "news," why in the hell would the average person?

I'd LOVE to see a piece where one reporter dressed up in Obama garb and the other goes McCain crazy, and the two go to opposite rallies (McCain person to Obama rally and vice versa) and to see the reporters document what happens. How were they treated? What was said?

Talk to sociologists, talk to campaign managers, talk to voters, etc.

It seems like none of us here can get enough of this ... so why does it seem like newspapers aren't doing anything in that respect?

Or am I just all kinds of wrong?

[Here's the thread I'm referencing directly in terms of video, btw: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/62145/]

 

[Kelly Tripucka]

Honestly, I think it all comes down to laziness. It's very sad, but I believe that. It's far easier for media outlets - and not just the 24-hour cable news folks - to cover/talk about "lipstick on a pig" comments than real issues. Trying to expose fring elements in either camp ... well, those days are gone. As are the days of real political coverage.

Media outlets are too lazy and too afraid of being accused of bias. It's a massive disservice to the nation.

People have come to accept fluff pieces - so the public is to blame to a certain degree.

Just my 2 cents (at 2:45 a.m.).

 

[MacDaddy]

Honestly, I think it all comes down to laziness. It's very sad, but I believe that. It's far easier for media outlets - and not just the 24-hour cable news folks - to cover/talk about "lipstick on a pig" comments than real issues. Trying to expose fring elements in either camp ... well, those days are gone. As are the days of real political coverage.

Media outlets are too lazy and too afraid of being accused of bias. It's a massive disservice to the nation.

People have come to accept fluff pieces - so the public is to blame to a certain degree.

Just my 2 cents (at 2:45 a.m.).

It's much easier and less expensive to pontificate than report. Combine that with having tons of airtime to fill and you get what we now have.