Dan LePera- HorseRace Coverage

Horse-Race Coverage in the Media
We have learned all that there is about horse- race coverage in our class. Horse-race coverage is all about who is winning and who is losing. They cover elections like they would a horse race. They talk about who is running strong and who is looking like they might have to pull up before the race is over. They talk about who looks the best and who looks sloppy. Media tends to make it into a one on one battle instead of which one’s plans and policies are better for the people. This is a great illustration of this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-26-campaign-sunday_N.htm

First of all we have the title. It says, “McCain, Obama campaign hard in final stretch.” This is horse race coverage at its finest. They are talking about the stretch run, in a campaign for the presidency. Next the reporter says that McCain believes that unlike poles show he is gaining ground on his opponent, almost like it is a race. Finally the reporter uses such words as leading, underdog, and prevails when describing the political race. There is not much about the plans of the candidates, so how can the public choose the right candidate. This is a negative in horse-race coverage.
There are positives. As weird as this might sound, competition is always better. By competing for something it makes the winner stronger. I am a firm believer that people are more interested in something when there are two or more people competing. People might become more informed by following politics because they are interested in who will win and who will lose. I just think for picking a candidate, this is not the best way. We need people to focus on the person and not the competition, whether that person is winning or losing.
I am not here to say there is no place for horse-race coverage in politics because I believe it definitely has a place in politics. It is human nature for someone to want to know who is winning and who is losing. It is human nature for someone to want to know one candidate’s plan versus the others. I just believe based on what we know about horse-race coverage I feel that the media has to put more effort in telling the public what the individual candidate’s specific plans are, and let them choose who is the right man or woman for the job.

Dan LePera

Fox News Framing http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523063,00.html

Obama selects Sonia Sotomayor to High Court
At first, when I thought of the term “framing” in reference to the media, I subconsciously limited it to only apply to the issues, and not necessarily individual people. The more I thought about it, I realized that people are framed by the reports who write about them. I think there is no better example than pitting enemies against each other. In this article, we have Obama, our democratic president, vs. Fox News, a staunch republican news medium. Although subtly, it becomes clear throughout the first few paragraphs exactly how Fox News is trying to paint Obama and by association, Sotomayor. The following bolded words are direct quotes from the article. “President Obama nominated federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, citing her "inspiring life story" and "distinguished career" in his decision.” To me, this opening statement seems to be cynical, if only slightly. By putting “inspiring life story” and “distinguished career” in quotes, it seems Fox is already trying, non-verbally to argue that these are not good reasons to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. “She is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, and she was raised in a Bronx housing project. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother. Sotomayor supposedly became interested in law after watching the TV show "Perry Mason." Again, I think that although most people see Sotomayor’s childhood as a testament to her strength and resolve, I feel that Fox is very delicately questioning her right to be in this prestigious position. By ending this statement showing that her interest in law came from television, I feel this is another unfair shot as Ms. Sotomayor. “Tuesday's selection drew swift praise from liberals like the Rev. Al Sharpton, who called the choice "prudent" and "groundbreaking." New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrats from Sotomayor's home state, also praised the pick and released a letter they wrote to Obama earlier in the month recommending her as an "excellent selection." By only showing liberals that support this appointment, it makes it seem as though any right-wing politicians would obviously disagree with this decision. The rest of the article takes stabs at Sotomayor and Obama here and there, but always maintains a level of professionalism which I assume is to preemptively deflect harassment from anyone who sees the article like I do.