Polls

 

Today is a big for the presidential candidates Obama and Clinton because of the primary elections taking place in the states of Indiana and North Carolina. With the internet being a primary source for the news with constant updates I decided to compare the coverage of today’s voting with the New York Times and CNN, two primary news sources. The first thing I noticed was the visuals that the websites put by the article, NYT has a map of the Indiana with the areas of each candidate selected, then you can click a tab to see the state of North Carolina and which areas the candidates has support from. On the CNN webpage there are pictures of the candidates you can cycle through. The CNN article was more of an analysis with percentages of what candidates have and what they need to get in order to win the race. To me it seems like there is a lot of number juggling and I get lost in the article.

            For me the New York Times article was easier to read and comprehend. First off the graphic of the states gave me an idea of who was winning so when I started reading I had a sense of what was going to be mention. Also the text was bigger, made it a bit easier to read. The NYT covered this as a story and had a more interesting beginning which really drew me in.  The article was not all numbers and percentages but useful information such as “The six contests remaining between now and June 3 offer few delegates, meaning tonight may provide the last significant chance for voters to influence superdelegates” (New York Times, What to Watch For: Indiana, North Carolina Edition). Overall I think the New York Times delivers a more useful understanding of today’s polls. 

R.R.

The presidential campaign is taking up a large portion in the news recently due to the upcoming election. I think the letter or statement by Mrs. Edwards is very true and powerful. As civilians we get a majority of the information of the presidential campaign from the news and media. What they choose to show is often what we make our decision based from. One thing I think that gets over looked is how different news stations have different biases. However, I feel that it is hard not to be biased, at least not on purpose. News directors and producers know their majority of audience, therefore will report on the issues that pertain the specific audience.

            Another thought that came to mind about the presidential election when reading this article was the power of speeches. Which can be looked back in history to the first televised debate, Nixon vs. Kennedy. When Americans watch a candidate speech they judging by their content but also delivery. I think a powerful and motivate speech can change a vote. If you look at Bush’s approval rate and his speaking abilities, I bet they correlate with each other. I think the candidates Edwards mentioned were great candidates but didn’t have the motivational umph that Obama, Clinton, or McCain obtain. Presidents have advisors and boards to help make the important decision and changes, but the President is the one who speaks and sells them to the American public.

 

Last class we saw on the CNN webpage an iReport option where users can upload their own content and report on something they saw or experienced. There are videos that can be uploaded or stories can be written. I think iReport is iCrap. Personally I don’t care what someone saw or did. I’m sure there are some interesting stories out there but I don’t need to know about every single one. This comes back to the debate about who are reporters. I still think reporters are the ones with the credentials. There is a pattern as technology is developing. When the desktop computer became a standard house holds desktop publishing was easy, so everyone could make a flyer, does this make them graphic designers? Now that video is starting to explode does this mean anyone who can press the record button is a filmmaker? I think just because you can do it doesn’t give you the title of a professional. People can waste their time in by publishing things on iReport but no one is going to read it when they can read an article published by CNN.