This election goes to the broadcasters

Besides the last presidential election, this was one of the elections I was most interested in; not necessarily personally, but in the way the media covered it. For being midterm, this election seemed to get more press than those in the recent past, and I think part of that is the acute splintering of our nation between party lines. There were probably conservatives (like me) and definitely moderates who didn’t mind seeing congress tip to the left. Also, it was interesting this year to see Missouri covered in the national news leading up to the election.

We touched on this is class, but I think it’s crucial to address in observations on election coverage, and that’s advertising. Local candidates’ ads this year were particularly invasive—we saw them everywhere; in newspapers, regional magazines, on the radio, on television and the Internet. Perhaps most notable were Talent and McCaskill’s back and forth smear campaign. With all this banter, I thought the media had an even more important role in educating the public, as well as a great opportunity to question all the pettiness represented in several campaigns. But, by and large, I didn’t find any particularly in-depth coverage state or nationwide. The Associated Press mainly covered bare bones debate-like stories, including the Monday Focus series on the Missouri wire.

I was looking for something more, and I think the Missourian did a good job of exploring alternative stories. The public life beat did the typical issues stories and profiles, but each candidate had at least a few other, quirky stories, or something more in-depth. I was also really impressed with our voters guide. Well, content-wise. Design-wise it was unimpressive, but that’s not really the point of a voters guide.

In terms of broadcast news, I really CNN and MSNBC’s coverage. With broadcast, I think there’s always an element of flashiness, so you get that over-the-top feel a bit, but if there’s ever a time to go over-the-top with coverage, it should be with elections. MSNBC did an awesome job of tying in their Web site to their broadcasts. Channel 9 in Kansas City also had some interesting election-night coverage, streaming coverage from their television channel. And, on a broader level, with online coverage, I really liked the NY Times interactive map that Patrick showed us in class. The Chicago Tribune online also had strong election-night coverage, using several briefs, headlines and interactive elements on their main page, instead of giving up most of their homepage real estate to a few stories.

The continued coverage throughout election night on CNN and even down to KOMU was pretty impressive. Personally, it bothers me that people are so inundated with poll results, because I think they unnecessarily influence the elections, but I guess it’s a good thing overall that we have the ability to offer the public this information on a minute-by-minute basis. The Missourian also did a fantastic job on their election-night reporting. This is the third election I’ve worked at the Missourian, and it was definitely the most intense. We had colorful coverage and were able to extend our deadlines long enough to include the Talent-McCaskill race results. A newsroom on an election night can either be a chaotic disaster or well-oiled teamwork. This election, I’d like to think we were the latter.

I don’t think I’ve ever conceded this, but overall, I think broadcast news did a better job this election in their coverage, especially leading up to Nov. 7. On the other hand, when it came to print outlets, local seemed to provide better information than nationwide sources.

AMERICA VOTES

I’ve never been big on politics, but Tuesday night was different. Due to the events of the last six years, I’ve found a new interest in how the America is being governed and was particularly curious to see how the rest of the country felt on Election Day 2006.

With the sun shining on a beautiful 72-degree day in Columbia, I had a gut feeling it was going to be a special day—possibly, even historic. I’d be lieing if I said I was as into the election coverage as I would be the Super Bowl, but once polling places in different locations closed and results began to come in, my eyes were glued to the television.

Prior to dinner, I had done a careful check of the coverage on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Right away, I eliminated Fox from my radar. I could barely make it through five minutes of their coverage. The set and background were plain and non-inviting to my eyes and none of their anchors, reporters or analysts made me want to stick around.

So, I quickly turned to CNN and they were discussing trends from around the country. They reported that voter turnout was extremely high and that 66 percent of voters in the exit polls said they thought the country needed a change. Connecting the dots, it was logical to assume what this meant for the evening’s results. While the other stations could have reported the same statistics, I didn’t catch it due to bad timing.

I also greatly enjoy listening to Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, both of whom were anchoring the election coverage in the newsroom. MSNBC posed an interesting duo with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, but for numerous reasons I decided to let Blitzer and Cooper lead me throughout the night.

The first intriguing part of CNN’s coverage was the layout of the set, which was placed right in the middle of the newsroom. While Blitzer mainly stayed positioned around the large board showing various percentages in the background, Anderson Cooper was literally walking throughout the newsroom chatting with different people. At times, he would stop at a certain desk and speak with various analysts including James Carville, Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley and Chief National Correspondent John King. At other times, he was talking to reporters at their desks. I enjoyed this setup because it gave me a better understanding of how much work is put in by people behind the scenes to make such an important show work.

My favorite part of their broadcast was the chart/graphic used by Jeff Greenfield throughout the evening. As opposed to many graphics that are too confusing, this one was perfect. It was extremely clear and easy for the viewers to follow. The chart would do a full revolution whenever he wanted to access the House of Representatives or the Senate. Each seat the Republicans had appeared in red and each seat that belonged to the Democrats was in blue. When a race was called, he would make the seat the rightful color. As the night grew old, he remained focus on the heated Senate races in Missouri, Virginia, Montana and Tennessee. All were currently red because the incumbent was Republican. Whenever he wanted to discuss the current situation and updated voting results he simply tapped the seat with the state’s abbreviation and a box would pop up showing both candidates.

I also felt as though CNN was really careful with its coverage. I distinctly remember an incumbent senator giving his concession speech, but CNN hadn’t confirmed the results yet and refused to call the race until they were certain. I thought CNN’s coverage was superb because it was a very relaxed and comforting presentation.

Election Coverage

First let me say I was SHOCKED this morning to learn that Claire McCaskill won and that Amendment 2 passed.
Anyway, maybe this is biased of me, but I think KOMU had excellent local coverage of the election. This was convergence journalism at its best. The coverage began weeks ago with the KOMU, Missourian & KBIA Smart Decision election guide. Every issue and individual that was voted on in this election had information on the election guide. On top of that each week KBIA and KOMU had web and podcasts discussing the important issues in the election. So I think they succeeded at their pre-election coverage.
On top of all of that, KOMU pulled through during the election. They had a reporter in each county in the viewing area (I was in Randolph) at the County Clerk's office calling in numbers as soon as they came in. Not only that, but there were vlogs and slideshows that were continually going up all night to give the viewer an interactive look at the election. Then at around 9:20, there was a webcast predicting the winners of the election. I'm not saying it all went over without technical difficulties, but it was a success.
Overall, I think all media outlets failed in informing the public prior to the election. I do not think Missouri voters were prepared to vote on issues such as Amendment 2. Voters went to the poll with information from political ads and minimal personal research. Journalists have to be the ones to bridge the gap and put the information out there. Though KOMU had the information online, there were not enough stories that said "here is every side of this issue." However, no other news outlet was very successful either.