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.